180° - The Movie

Christian Evangelist, Ray Comfort attacks again. The main premise in this film is the portrayal of abortion as modern Holocaust, thus claiming to be a powerful, irrefutable argument against abortion that it will reverse pro-choice opinions within seconds.

The argument goes like this: Hitler murdered Jews. Abortion kills babies. Therefore, abortion is just like the Holocaust.

The interesting thing is that this secret that can change people's opinions 180 degrees on the issue of abortion in seconds actually is a thirty-three minute long film which doesn't really give an argument that can be made in seconds as promised.

745 Comments / User Reviews

Abortion is a women's choice, period. It is individual and very personal. Probably one of the most difficult decisions any woman will ever have to make.

Fortunately, I have never been in a position where I would have to make that choice so I can't honestly say what I would do but I'm grateful that I would have a safe option to terminate if necessary.

The film was lame, so lame in fact that I had to turn it off at 33:03. Chock full of stupid arguments and idiotic comparisons! Comparing abortion to the holocaust? Seriously!? You're comparing the deaths, oftentimes slow & tortuous, of mostly adult human beings (they were out of the womb, walking & talking etc) to the surgical removal of an unplanned fetus. And let's use our grownup words. Can you say "fetus"? Because that's what it is, a fetus not a baby. Talk about twisting words. You keep referring to anyone who is pro choice as being hateful, having no love in our hearts. How did you deduce that? Do you know any of these people personally? Are they all nasty & hateful? You're sort of depicting them that way. What book was that where I read "judge not lest ye be judged "??? Lemmie think...

I managed to copy and paste just a bit of your comment here. (I'm not good at copy & paste) "Which exposes the hatred in their hearts. Just as they view the death of millions of unborn people as OK, so they perhaps hate and wish to kill, in their hearts, anyone who opposes a woman's right to choose." I didn't copy exactly what I wanted to but good enough to make my point. You are generalizing and lumping in one big heap all who are pro choice as " Just as they view the death of millions of unborn people as OK, so they perhaps hate and wish to kill, in their hearts, anyone who opposes a woman's right to choose. Murderers commit more murder in their hearts." So we are all full of hate & murderous intent & want to kill anti-abortionists? Really? Have any pro choice activists bombed your churches plainly stating they did it because you are pro-life? Funny because I seem to remember plenty of news stories about christian pro-lifers assassinating doctors who perform abortions and bombing women's health clinics. Could I be wrong? Could it be the other way around, as you are claiming? I know many, many women who have had abortions who went on to later have families and were wonderful, very loving mothers. Do you think these women are just deceiving us? Do they just appear loving for show but secretly hide their true, hateful & murderous nature?

Twisted words you say, twisted words... and you call yourself Christian, how sad. God must be crying.

On a personal note, between my last 2 pregnancies which both resulted in happy healthy babies, I had the unfortunate experience of a late miscarriage. I was 7&1\2 months along with a baby boy which for reasons the doctors never understood, died within me but didn't naturally abort. Just to be clear, my baby died but remained inside my uterus. I had to go into hospital to have it removed so as to prevent my developing a uterine infection. I already had a low grade fever which my doctor discovered at my normal monthly prenatal exam which is how we discovered the baby had died. This was one of the most difficult experiences I have ever had to go through. But to make matters even worse, some people thought I had actually had a late term abortion because of my belly size & the fact that I had to be hospitalized for the procedure. Also, medically what I went through is called a missed abortion. All that really means is I was pregnant, the baby died in utero (abortion) but my body did not do it's part & push the dead child out (missed). Every one of the people who misjudged me were hard core Christians. That hurt!

And by the way, at 7 months the term is no longer fetus, it's baby. Just so you know before the comments start.

If men could become pregnant abortion would be a holy sacrament! The man who had the most abortions would be invited to dine with the Pope at the Vatican as are mothers who give birth to the most children today.

Totally agree. Those Zionists have their filthy little paws in ALL THE MEDIA...even Top Documentary Films!

Martin Scrase
- 08/24/2017 at 17:43

I think the video powerfully makes people think about the logic of their views.

If you view a foetus as a non life, none baby, then you are acting like the Nazis who viewed Jews as sub human. If you view a baby in a womb that is growing from conception as a life to be valued then you will fight against people like the Nazis.

The comments expose what people believe. The first comment said:-

"Sorry, didn't change my mind about abortion. I feel like comparing abortion to the Holocaust is immoral in and of itself."

It is immoral if you view the death of 50,000,000 foetus's as subhumans. But it is not immoral if you view 50,000,000 babies as human lives.

Many of the comments against this video just resort to verbal abuse. Which exposes the hatred in their hearts. Just as they view the death of millions of unborn people as OK, so they perhaps hate and wish to kill, in their hearts, anyone who opposes a woman's right to choose. Murderers commit more murder in their hearts.

God will judge those who twist reality. He shows grace to those who realize their lack of love. What is the most loving thing to do? To kill life or to save it? God gives life and offers us life if we turn to him for life. Just look how Jesus the Jew was so persecuted by the Jews. They killed him on a cross. But the God of love was dying for their sins and so loved them that he rose again and now offers you and me forgiveness, and a new mind and spirit.

Who hates more? Baby killers or baby savers! Yet God loves to save anyone who sees his love. Please think about your responses. Are they based on love? Please look at God's love for all of us.

180 is so factual and I love the realistic comparison between the Holocaust and Abortion. Abortion is becoming the worlds Holocaust, and no one seems to care. Three weeks into pregnancy, and that child is most definitely alive. You can identify body parts, and six weeks into the pregnancy, to kill it would be murder to any decent person. Abortion, to me, is literally assassination made legal. Murder made normal. The child might have a disease, and if the child dies after birth, the parent can live knowing that it was not under their own hand. The child might grow to eventually commit suicide, and again, the parent can live knowing that they were not the one who killed their child. No man has any right to steal away the life of another, nor the opportunity.
"It's the woman's body," says the feminist, "Who are we to tell her what she can or can't do?" A huge majority of children killed through Abortion would have been female. Besides, who is she to decide whether someone can or can't live? It's the child's body. Don't mistake the mother for the child, nor the visitor for the home. The host does not deem control over his visitors, neither should a mother over her child. She should not be allowed to decide between life and death.
This documentary was very realistic and insightful. People who criticise this clearly have a thing against either life or religion. It is not my place to criticise the critics, but this documentary truly was worth the time.

180 DEGREES IS PURE GENIUS!!! My comment is this: To be conceived is a gift, and if there is gratitude to allow others to be conceived, the gift of death will be met with eternal life. Only in death does a soul understand its eternal outcome. Many do not believe in eternal existence, but once the last breath is taken, each person will. GOD bless us everyone

Tell that to the hundreds of millions stewing in their own feces and dying of malnutrition and decease. I'm sure you are living a very comfortable life but stop telling others to do as you think they should.
YOU DON'T IN THEIR SHOES!!!!

jessica
- 09/10/2015 at 04:15

@Tg - in total agreement, and if i may piggyback - the comparison of abortion to the holocaust (which I always heard it referred to as the Shoah) is a false analogy. Also, pro-birthers only look at the act itself without knowing everything involved in pregnancy (biologically and socio-economically).

1) A pregnant female must visit the doc once a month until her third trimester, and then it's once a week (USA has no maternity/parental protection for employment - so basically asking for that much time off can literally put a woman in a tight spot regarding employment). These absences are exclusive of sickness that can occur during pregnancy, or if you already have a child who is sick and need time off for that child)

2) Once as mother - no employer takes you seriously - you are on the "mommy track" and are consigned to menial tasks. Further, should you happen to lose your job because of maternity leave - good luck finding a new one - no employer wants to hire new mothers because of how often they have to be out with their infant for "wellness visits" or the fact that daycare's are petrie dishes. Both you and your kid will be sick, and often.

3) Daycare costs as much as private schooling - I pay 640.00 a month for my two year old - plus snacks and supplies and diapers, and so on...

4) I don't know how familiar you guys are with embryonic development, but there is this thing called a blastocyst. it divides - one part baby, one part placenta (not baby). so stop it with the "life begins at conception" clap trap. we are also speaking about something that doesn't crap until it's well into it's second trimester or has a fully formed central nervous system - so when my rights as a taxpaying citizen are dismissed for a "potential life" - many pregnancies miscarry within the first three months - yeah, i get a bit miffed.

for those talking about long term relationships - yep, that would be crappy to do to someone, but it is still her life and we don't have to live with her choice. so we have to trust that she knows what is best for her. i live in alabama where a personhood bill has just passed allowing a fetus the right to an attorney. alabama is also a state where a rapist can sue for visitation. not to mention a woman cannot voluntarily legate her tubes - even if she knows she doesn't want kids.

i just worked a case where a 3 year old and a 6 year old were barely surviving in 105 degree heat, in an apartment with no power - little food - and living in their own filth - open sores all over their bottoms - and malnourished to a horrific extent. snuffing out a "life" at 8-12 weeks is way more humane than relegating a small child to those kinds of horrors. people should consider themselves very lucky to live a life where nothing is worse than death.
women do not spontaneously reproduce - vasectomies are only 500-600.00. a child costs over 250,000.00 to raise to the age of 18.

what an absolutely twisted bias crock of bullshat.. thou shalt not kill.. unless of course god tells you too.. If you believe in the invisible man then the atrocities commit by god.. ordered by and done in his name make the nazi's look like school children.. and even in the magic fairy tale book god recognizes the official beginning of life as birth..genesis 2:7. a womans body is her own.. her choice but if you have read the magic book it's clear that women to god are basically property all of these christian apolgetics are the same take what ever scripture suits there agenda and ignore the rest.. if you can ignore part of it then its fair to ignore it all god is a fairy tale and religion invented to control bronze age barbarians continually perpetuated by indoctrination to further control the masses intelligent design has nothing to say that is intelligent morals are based on the mores of society.. if yours are based on fairy tales if your morals are based on some promise of a glorious after life then you are nor moral there was nothing before this life and nothing after.. it's a one shot deal.. do the most good you can while you are here.. i dont find many adults believe in the easter bunny..santa clause the tooth fairy or unicorns.. get over this mystical bullshat .. embrace knowledge based on empirical facts evidence and reason and perhaps we could truly make this world a decent place to live in !!

Abortion is not Murder! A fetus and a Human are two very different things. Humans have souls, fetus' do not. Our souls are bestowed upon us at birth. The Hour the day the month the year that we are born. That's what astrology shows us. The fact is we are all made up of energy. The energy we receive from the stars and planets the moment we are born is the soul we will carry with our bodies until we expire and return to being just energy.

According to the Xian who did this video all Jews are going to hell anyway because they do not take Jesus as their personal saviour but know this is bull****. So no matter how good they are, no matter they have never broken any of the ten commandments this God of YOURS will torture each and every Jew for all eternity so horribly for not obeying such a disgusting tyrant god ...so..obviously better they aborted before birth and all others who since god knows if they will ever sin and not repent they go to hell forever too! So all i can say is VIVA ABORTION for it saves most everyone in the world from an eternity of fire and brimestones. **** your god i want nothing to do with this god of your and those like you's fake god.

Of course a bunch of 14 year old american girls aren't going to know who Hitler is. They're too busy being brainwashed by MTV and Disney Channel to have room for worrying about some guy from so long ago they can't even comprehend who killed some people. They see like 3 realistic looking murders a day or more on TV. Whatever. And then he finds the kid that has been smoking weed since he was 8 and who was probably skipping class when everyone was learning about Hitler.

It's actually not even a fetus until about 6 or 7 weeks, if you want to go by the heartbeat rule. But even then, it's a fetus that's just beginning to develop, when you first hear the heartbeat. Stem cell research wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that it's not a fully developed baby in the womb for the first two or three months. I personally think the abortion law should change to the that theory: If you can detect a heartbeat, you are no longer allowed to abort that baby, and it's usually an average of about 6 weeks, give or take. I'm pro choice, I just think that abortion should be the last choice to give yourself. If you can't even take care of yourself, then you should get an abortion. Another thing that anti-abortionists don't tend to think about is that although abortion is legal up to the end of the first trimester, 99% of abortions are done WAY before that, so the vast majority of abortions is nothing like murdering a baby. Everybody needs to educate themselves on this topic, Pro choice or Pro life, makes no difference, get educated, know how abortions work, the laws surrounding them, stem cell research, things like that. Be an autodidact on this issue.

You first state that abortion law should be changed to prevent abortions after about six weeks, but then state not only that you're pro choice, but "if you can't even take care of yourself, then you should get an abortion." Suppose your financial, personal or mental/emotional situation changes radically after the first six weeks? What about serotinously discovered ectopic pregnancies or non-viable fetuses?
I look at it this way: better 5,000,000 abortions than one unwanted child.

Alaskies
- 04/22/2013 at 01:29

I know that it probably amazes you that one can appear to be on both sides, but I'm looking at it from a more scientific standpoint. To the people who think that it's the equivalent of murdering a baby or child, I'm stating that it's absolutely not. I was scientifically explaining when one could and should rationally determine EXACTLY when that constant developing mass of cells in a woman's womb basically does become a baby. And to me, once it's heart starts beating, it is a baby, and even has the shape of one. I'm pro choice, but I agreed with the heartbeat bill when it was proposed. It would still give the woman the choice, it would just cut the time frame in half; instead of having 3 whole months, said woman would have roughly a month and a half to choose. Is that not enough time? Why not give the woman 6 months to choose? Why not 8 months? And all of those "what ifs" that you threw out there, are those all things that can only happen between 6 weeks and 12 weeks? It seems like that's how you're stating it, as if nothing like that could occur AFTER the first trimester. Isn't a non-viable fetus one that cannot and will not be able to survive outside of the womb? Nothing would change except for the time frame, that's all I'm talking about here. I would hate to see Roe V. Wade overturned, because things would just go back to the way they were before Roe V. Wade, i.e. back alley abortions done by shady doctors with very risky consequences.

robertallen1
- 04/22/2013 at 01:48

The list is not all-inclusive, for it is impossible to come up with an omniroster--and this alone militates against foreshortening the period for decision. Frankly, it is none of your business or anyone else's except for the woman's in consultation with whomever she chooses.

Alaskies
- 04/23/2013 at 04:16

And there it is. You're simply butt hurt because I'm not completely and utterly on your side when it comes to the issue at hand. I'm half way on your side, if not more, but I'm just saying, for the sake of arguing that abortion is like killing a baby, as Ray Comfort suggests it is, it's actually not like killing a fully developed and birthed baby, at all. I just think the detection of a heartbeat is the first sign that there is a living, feeling, breathing fetus in the womb. This is just my opinion, people are always going to have their opinions, you should try and be less on the defense when somebody simply states the way they feel about something. It's purely subjective.

robertallen1
- 04/23/2013 at 05:18

Considering that these people are trying to take away the right of women to choose for themselves and are endeavoring to inflict their morality on others, no way!

Alaskies
- 04/25/2013 at 02:43

Okay ;)

Michael Ptacek
- 02/19/2013 at 05:13

Do we really want to go back to what we had before 1973? When young women used coat hangers to maim themselves or paid a king's ransom to a back alley "doctor" with a dirty knife and as a result of no legal, safe, or cheap alternative many of these young women died either from bleeding to death or from infection. Today there are safe, affordable, sterile abortion clinics widely available. Do we really want to go back to young women bleeding to death? My parents back in the 60's "had to get married" because of me. They had an unhappy marriage, abused me, and I wanted to kill myself all of the time, and have suffered from lifelong clinical depression. I would rather have been aborted. Just as many abortions occurred before abortion was legal, but it was just underground, and many young women died. Furthermore, comparing legalized, voluntary abortion to the holocaust is a terrible insult to the Jewish people. No one is forced to have an abortion in this country. If abortion is against your religion then carry your child to term and then give it up for adoption, but don't try to tell me that I should vote republican in the name of god just so we can make it illegal and drive it underground again which will be to the detriment of public health. You have no right to mix religion with politics. You can't legislate morality. There are many different faiths in this country. Telling me that I am going to hell for whatever is against YOUR religion is not being a good christian. People like this id**t make me ashamed to be a born again christian.

This docu is a joke. They selected slow people in the beginning and asked them if they knew who Hitler was, knowing they would give a negative response to the question. The concept of Hell is also greatly overstated because the punishment (hellfire and pain for ETERNITY) would never fit the crime (lying, lusting, etc.). The analogy of the Holocaust and abortion is terrible and full of so many holes.

If you take away choice from women, you'll be taking away their personal freedom. Choice is something that is very important to people, especially the older generations. We choose who we love, we choose what we eat, we choose to drink or not to drink (substance abuse being a negative and extreme case, I'm just talking about social drinking). This is yet another scare tactic documentary with an emotional soundtrack and dead people slideshow.

If you were to say that Ray Comfort did a bias editing of this doco I would agree, however your statement is as insulting as the doco itself.

If I was to ask you a question and you didn't know the answer does that make you slow or uneducated in that particular subject.
I'm sure you would be insulted if I called you slow considering your studying psycholgy at university.

Why is the freedom of choice more important to the older generation compared to any other???? I find that statement absurd to say the least.

Ethan Radatz
- 04/16/2013 at 16:35

Well, "mate". You didn't read my statements that carefully. And they did select slow people, anyone would agree with me because WWII is Middle School History and High School History. Asking who Hitler is, would be very, VERY easy, rather than asking them what the 14 Point Plan was. Do you see the difference in the question difficulty?

As for the older generation, I'm saying people like elderly should enjoy the freedom of choice as well. Go to any nursing home and what do they emphasize? Choice. They give Elderly a choice of what to have for a meal, a choice of what they want to do for activities, etc. Any nursing home that only gives 1 selection wouldn't be operating in the best sense to accommodate the older adults. Choice is something that is helpful to all generations, I was just giving an example.

CultureSeparates
- 01/07/2013 at 21:17

This doc is a bible basher fear mongering plebs into submission to religion. I can't believe people are so stupid. The problem is not that abortion is legal but that people are so stupid they don't even know who hitler was. Stupid is a very serious disease and is spreading very fast, but there is an extremely effective cure; EDUCATION.

Abortion should be legal as it is a progressive step full stop, but it is education that makes the difference between a woman having an abortion because she's not in the mood to have a child or because she has learned there will be gross deformities or medical complications down the line.

Without education there is no critical thinking and without that people just run around being influenced by the last opinion they hear, which is what happened in this documentary. Education is a defence against ignorance and that includes manipulative religious biggots

Just wondering: would you like a public, moderated debate? That way we can get past the name-calling etc. and keep the real issue in focus: do pre-born children have the right of protection from those who wish to kill them?

No need to. The laws and courts in Canada and the United States have pretty much settled this point--and you can do nothing about it.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 05:40

Some courts have made decisions rationalizing the most heinous evil. It's dangerous to allow courts to the final arbiters of morality. You should know. After all you're an American. In a different context, I wouldn't be surprised to find you condoning civil disobedience.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 05:45

The courts are not the final arbiters of morality, but rather of laws touching on what some consider morality. This is a marked difference. One way or the other, it is a woman's legal right to decide whether she will or will not bring her fetus to full term and the beauty of it is that there's nothing you or those of your ilk can do about it. So mind your own business.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 05:47

So what about courts defending segregation and systemic discrimination against black people? History shows how evil those courts really are. I suspect the same is true in regard to abortion laws.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 06:38

Red herring. The law and the courts in the U.S. and Canada have determined that women have the right to choose whether to bring their pregnancy full term and that's all that matters. You and those like you are neutralized and rightly so.

Once again, keep your nose out of other people's business.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 06:56

I don't think you know what a red herring actually is.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 07:01

Your statement about the courts' defending segregation and systemic discrimination have nothing to do with abortion and using these decisions as the basis for discrediting judicial decisions regarding abortion constitutes an attempt to mislead and thus is a red herring.

P.S. You're not intelligent enough for me to care what you think.

P.P.S. Keep your nose out of other people's business.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 07:04

A mere child could see that you're not being fair. You argued that court decisions about abortion more or less settled the matter. I pointed out that courts have often been mistaken about matters of enormous social consequences. You then call this a red herring. You need to go back to logic school.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 07:08

Mistaken? In whose eyes? And yes, the court decisions as well as the law have more or less settled the matter and neutralized you and those like you who desire to make decisions for others on matters which are none of their business.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 07:10

Are you saying that the court decisions in support of segregation were just fine? You are despicable in the extreme. Also, it's increasingly obvious that you are lacking intelligence.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 07:13

That's not what I'm saying and you know it.

One way or the other, I don't tell women that they can't have abortions; I say they should decide for themselves. This puts me head and shoulders above you both morally and intellectually.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 07:25

Only in your own dreams!

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 07:33

What a brilliant refutation!

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 07:31

Women, at least in Canada and the U.S., now have the right to choose whether to obtain an abortion. Now, you and your minions want to take away that right and return us once again to the era of coat hangers and shady back rooms. And why? Because it does not comport with YOUR cheap idea of morality.

You and those like you are every abomination rolled into one.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 07:06

Your p.s and p.p.s show how juvenile you actually are.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 07:10

As if that's a response.

Once again, don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong, like in personal decisions regarding abortion. Modern day women can now choose with no interference from you and those like you.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 07:11

Yes, it is a real response but you lack the smarts to see it. You are blinded by ideology and rage.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 07:15

Obviously it didn't sink in, so once again, don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong, like in personal decisions regarding abortion. Modern day women can now choose with no interference from you and those like you and if that's being blinded by ideology and rage against moral bigots such as you, I'm all for it.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 07:31

As I've said a lot in this nasty little exchange of opinions, you are avoiding the central question: does a pre-born human deserve the protection of law from those who want to burn it with saline solutions or cut it to pieces with knives? You avoid this question by deciding arbitrarily that in fact pre-born humans are not humans just like courts used to defend the abhorrent notion that blacks were not real people fully deserving of the protection of law. Courts are fallible. Courts have often been wrong. Governments have often been wrong. The worst atrocities in the world have been sanctioned by governments and courts. And the blood of the innocents cries out against you. I've actually seen a hacked apart 8 month fetus. Not easily forgotten. I repeat: the blood of the innocents cries out against you and will not be forgotten. What you have sown, you will reap. More importantly, societies which sow abortion will reap a whirlwind of disorder and decay. In fact, it's already happening. Good night and this time it's final: no more responses from me. I know you'll have one more little diatribe after I sign off to preserve for you the illusion that you have won the victory. If that's the case, we'll chalk that up to pathological self-deception. Anyway, I'm out of here. Maybe I'll check back next year.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 08:08

"And the blood of the innocents cries out against you. . . . I repeat: the blood of the innocents cries out against you and will not be forgotten. What you have sown you will reap." And what about the blood of Savita Halappanavar and others just as innocent who could have been saved, but perished due to and at the hands of garbage like you.

"And the blood of the innocents cries out against you. . . . I repeat: the blood of the innocents cries out against you and will not be forgotten. What you have sown you will reap." How tawdry, how pinchbeck, how maudlin. When all else fails, try cheap emotion and when that fails, lambaste the laws and the courts--they have been wrong in the past so they must be wrong now because they don't conform to my ideas of morality. Then top it off with a prophetic clincher, "More importantly, societies which sow abortion will reap a whirlwind of disorder and decay. In fact, it's already happening." Not that you actually know this, not that you can actually prove it, but it's always nice to go out in a blaze of glory, however false the glow. Somewhere in the series, don't forget to allude to gory photos of abortions (not that all abortions end this way) and confound the real-live rights of the mother with what you feel should be the rights of the fetus.

I have not won any victory, but society has, over vile, overarching creeps like you.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 07:57

You ask me to provide "factual arguments" for deciding what another person does with her body. I'm not interested in providing such evidence. I am very interested in providing evidence for deciding what we do with the bodies of pre-born humans.

As for the answer to your quesion: trash them along with those like you.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 08:21

Every time I try to discuss things with pro-abortionists, it ends like this: with the abortionist saying hateful things. In my mind, therefore, a pro-abortion stance is therefore inextricably linked with hatred. There is no light in you but only darkness. And it is very deep, indeed. I won't be responding any longer to anything you say.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 15:45

You're right it's hatred. For conceited, ignorant id*ots like you who try to impose their version of morality on thers.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 17:00

It belongs to the nature of genuine moral convictions that a person wants to share them. You also are trying to share you moral conviction that abortion is just fine. In fact, you share this moral conviction aggressively and seek to impose it on all of society. For example, in Canada, where I live, my tax dollars are used to fund abortions to the tune of many millions of dollars per year. So a pro-abortion morality is being shoved down my throat by the likes of you. My point? Morality is inescapably public. There is no such thing as a purely private morality. Our collective moral choices create a society and that's why abortion is not just a private choice between a woman and her doctor. It's a private choice affecting the women, the pre-born child and the whole of society. In closing, I think your anger and rage is also the product of a pro-abortion society. You are a very, very messed up human.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 17:19

A pro-abortion mentality is better than anything you have to offer, for it allows choice and militates against dictation by troglodytes like you who set themselves up as arbiters of morality. The tax dollars used to fund abortions in Canada are well spent as are whatever private funds are used--and the beauty is that you can't do anything about it except stew.

Once again, what I do is none of your goddam business and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong makes you a very messed up piece of garbage.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 17:24

You, sir, are as blind as a bat. You say that you don't think I should impose my morality on others but then you turn around and happily endorse society imposing its morality on me even by way of tax dollars. You think you're a free-thinking man but you're actually a highly prejudiced individual. If I lived near you, I'd be arming myself in case your hatred would spill over in acts of violence.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 17:37

On October 28, 2012 Savita Halappanavar died at Galway Hospital in Ireland due to vermin such as you.

Get this straight, a pro-abortion society such as that in your country does not dictate abortion, but makes it a matter of individual choice which does not in the least affect those of your persuasion. Thus, you have nothing to complain about except your aborted ability to impose your form of morality on others.

If you lived near me and tried to stick your nose into my business, I would make your life unbearable.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 17:44

You are an irrational man and very, very angry. I would say you are a dangerous person. You are driven by hatred, not logic. You are concerned about Savita. I don't know about her situation but I'll guess she died of a botched abortion. That's really sad and I can weep about those situations. However, you should be weeping about the women who die in clinics when an abortion goes wrong. You should be weeping for the women who live with life-long guilt about taking the life of a little one. You should weep about the nearly full-term babies killed in their mother's womb. You should weep about the partial-birth abortions happening in Canada and other places of the world. You should weep about the kind of society we have become, one in which more than a million women make the choice to terminate a pregnancy (that's in the. U.S.). You should weep about a culture in which abortion has become a a form of birth control. You should weep about the loss of human dignity and the degradation of values that abortion has brought to our world. And there is much more you should be weeping about, including your own destructive rage.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 18:38

Why didn't you read up on Savita Halappanavar before keyboarding your idiotic and patently ignorant response--and no, she did not die of a botched abortion.

"You ask me to provide 'factual arguments' for deciding what another person does with her body. I'm not interested in providing such evidence." So with a statement like that, don't you speak to me about not being driven by logic and don't you dare dictate to me as to what I should be weeping at--and, by the way, the more birth control, the better, even if more than a million women in the U.S. choose to terminate a pregnancy (and just where does this figure come from?).

Abortion has been recorded as far back as 2,700 BC in ancient China and 1,550 BC in ancient Egypt (1,550 BC). So just which values have been degraded by the practice and how has this resulted in the loss of what you consider human dignity?

Your ignorance, stupidity and desire to dictate in matters which are none of your business make you potentially dangerous and at least one can take comfort that Canadian law holds you and those of your clades firmly in check.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 21:12

Your thoughts and your conduct are a humbling monument to the evil darkness residing in the human heart.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 21:42

What if a woman gets impregnated through rape or her delivery is likely to be a life-threatening situation? I'll bet you would still expect her to go through the ordeal no matter what. Talk about the evil darkness residing in the human heart.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 21:50

No I wouldn't.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 21:55

So you would permit abortions in cases of rape or danger to the potential mother, is that correct? If so, then why not in other situations, such as an unwanted pregnancy--people do like to screw, you know--sometimes condoms fail you know?

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 22:10

I think your response here brings out the underlying issue behind the abortion debate. Our society has undergone a sexual revolution since the 1960's. People have lost any sense of sexual restraint. When they hear pro-lifers defending the unborn, they take it as an assault on their sexual freedom. And they are probably right. Being consistently pro-life means embracing an ethic of sexual self-control. Societies which don't inculcate sexual self-control simply don't last very long. However, as this is a new topic, I think I will sign off at this point. After all, it's Sunday and I need to have some rest.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 22:28

So now ignorant, conceited little you not only wants to prohibit abortion (except perhaps in certain cases. I really can't tell because you haven't answered my question directly), but desires to regulate people's sex lives as well.

"Societies which don't inculcate sexual self-control simply don't last very long." The Sumerian society lasted 2,500 years; the Greek, 1,400, the Roman, 1000 and there were no sexual self-controls inclucated in any of them. Obviously history was not one of your fields of study.

Once again, you're a fraud, but a least held in check by the laws of your fine country.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 04:27

Actually, it`s becoming more and more apparent that you are an ignorant, self-serving fool. Your portrayal of various civilizations is highly inaccurate as just a little study would show you. Maybe you`ve imbibed just a bit too much of Margaret Mead`s nonsense. If you have an open mind, read ``Sex and Culture`` by J.D. Unwin.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 04:33

And just where were these inculcated sexual controls in the Sumerian, Roman and Greek societies? You don't know what you're talking about.

One way or the other, when it comes to the private affairs of others, such as abortion, mind your own goddam business.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 04:42

I do know what I'm talking about. I've read all the Greek and Roman classics. I've written a paper for an upper level course on the sexual ethics of late Roman society. You are just passing off as learning what you have learned from your progressive mentors.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 04:58

What a stunning refutation. My teachers were all wrong because they were allegedly progressives.

P.S. I've read all the Greek and Roman classics too and a lot more.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 05:09

As a matter of fact, progressive intellectuals are not trustworthy guides in any discipline. They all have an ax to grind and therefore their research is invariably tendentious. Research from late modernism is usually of a superior quality in every discipline.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 05:17

Where is your proof? bald-faced assertions don't cut it.

By the way, I still have no idea what a progressive intellectual is.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 04:46

J. D. Unwin. Isn't he the id*ot who claimed that unless a civilization were monogamous, it would crumble, thereby placing his ideology before his scholarship? Unlike Margaret Mead, Unwin can hardly be considered a mainstream anthropologist (the only type of anthropologist that counts). Again, what about the Sumerians, the Greeks and the Romans?

It's becoming apparent that you are more concerned with being able to stick your nose into other people's business than with anything else. As such, you're disgusting.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 21:13

You are beyond the hope of logic. You are driven not by logic but by dark hatred. You should be watched. Every who knows a "robertallen" should be concerned.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 21:21

As you are not drive by facts, you are not driven by logic. At least you don't need to be watched. The laws of Canada have taken care of that.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 21:14

You can't make simple logical distinctions like that between a)a woman's body and b)the body of her baby. You conflate the two and act as if they are one and the same.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 21:21

Until that baby is delivered, they are.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 21:25

This statement shows that you are led by ideology and not actual facts.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 21:51

"You ask me to provide 'factual arguments' for deciding what another person does with her body. I'm not interested in providing such evidence."

So now you bring up the concept of facts--well, here's a fact which you can find in any book on obstetrics: the fetus is merely a parasite living in the womb.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 21:55

In reality, the fetus is a genetically and biologically discrete human being. Those are the facts. Yes, it is a very tiny, weak and defenseless human being which will remain dependent for a long time on its mother or other caregivers but it is most definitely a genetically and biologically discrete entity.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 22:08

So is the appendix.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 22:11

No, it`s not. It has the same DNA as the rest of the body.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 22:28

So what?

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 04:28

You ignorant question here speaks volumes.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 21:17

I don't have time to read up on every bit of news that comes my way (though I do read four or five newspapers a day as well numerous periodicals on both the right, the left and the center not to mention about ten of the best know blogs of political analysts). I also have multiple degrees from a large Canadian university. So I'm not quite as ignorant as you think. I've noticed over the years that progressive types like you imagine that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. I'm pretty sure that in a moderated debate I would make mincemeat out of you. That's how it usually ends for pro-abortionists in debate. When they can't just yell and scream and insult their opponent but actually have to deal with real biological facts, they always lose the debate.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 21:38

So you have multiple degrees from a large Canadian university. I notice that you have omitted the subjects of the degrees as well as the name of the university (and by the way, when it comes to an institution of higher learning, size doesn't count.)

In addition, if you actually read four or five newspapers a day, you would have come across an account of Savita Halappanavar which would have obviated the need for you to post a silly response and misdirected guess at her fate. In short, this makes you a liar.

And indeed you are stupid, not because you disagree with me, but because in place of facts (which, by your own admission, you contemn), you flout your questionable education (leaving out both subjects and name of institution), you term me a progressive (whatever that is) without knowing much about me, you leave yourself open to exposure by enumerating your daily reading material and yet admit to knowing nothing about Savita Halappanavar and in a moment of brainless self-aggrandizement, speculate on the outcome (obviously in your favor) of a hypothetical debate between us. Yes, you are stupid, but held in check by the laws which redound to the benefit of your country.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 22:02

I mentioned my university background only because pro-abortion intellectuals love to portray pro-lifers as uneducated, unsophisticated fundamentalist buffoons. In fact, I don't value my university education very highly. Universities today don't really educate, as I found out for myself. Instead, they indoctrinate. They allow for and promote only one point of view on a whole range of very complex moral and philosophical questions. Nonetheless, I worked my way through to a graduate degree and that should tell you that my mind is at least operational. Pro-lifers are not ignorant of biology, ethics or philosophy. We know the same facts known to pro-abortionists.

As for self-aggrandizement, no, that's not really the point. I'm a tolerably good debater but my point is that when pro-abortionists are forced to behave civilly and to actually engage with real biological and genetic facts, they invariably lose the argument, if not in their own evaluation, then certainly in the minds of the audience.

As for not remembering Savita's case, that was a pity, but I have now refreshed my memory. I don't think there is any support whatever for your cause in her case.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 22:19

You still leave out your alleged subjects of study and the name of the institute you allegedly attended. I wonder why. Your pissant excuse simply does not hold water.

"You ask me to provide 'factual arguments' for deciding what another person does with her body. I'm not interested in providing such evidence." In light of this, you have no business even mentioning facts.

So you've now refreshed your memory in Savita's case. By your own admission, you never had any to begin with. So all you're trying to do is cover up for your initial lie about reading four or five newspapers a day with a nebulous "I don't think there is any support whatever for your cause in her case" which shows that you haven't read about the matter and are thus compounding one lie with another. You're a fraud!

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 22:22

You my dear friend are an ignorant ass. If ever there was a fraud in the world, you are it. I`ll get back to your sorry excuse for rational discourse tomorrow.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 22:50

You obviously know nothing about history, but assert "Societies which don't inculcate sexual self-control simply don't last very long."

Oblivious to the written going back 5,000 years, you bemoan "the loss of human dignity and the degradation of values that abortion has brought to our world." You cannot relate what these values are, much less how they apply to what you view as the loss of human dignity.

You claim a college education, but repeatedly fail to provide the subjects of study or the name of the institution, offering the pissant excuse that you didn't value your education very highly. So why bother to mention your college education in the first place.

Depsite your contention that you read four or five newspapers a day, you first state that you know nothing about Savita's case, then claim you recollect it, then fail to comment on it in any meaningful way. Face it, you never read about it in the first place. This makes you a liar.

"You ask me to provide 'factual arguments' for deciding what another person does with her body. I'm not interested in providing such evidence." This statement says a lot about the level of your intellection and more about your desire to dictate to others merely on the basis your version of morality.

You claim " . . . a significant majority [whatever that's supposed to mean] of Americans do not believe in abortion on demand" and yet fail to provide any statistics to back this up.

Now, who's the ignorant fraud?

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 04:36

You assert many things here but can't prove any of them. You show a knack for taking my words out of context and so flagrantly that I am forced to conclude it's purposeful. You are full of arrogant posturing. What's really frightening is that you seem to believe you're intellectually quite sharp.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 04:49

You haven't been able to refute anything I have said, much less answer any questions such as where your statistics regarding the United States come from. Therefore, you're the mental midget.

Now provide me with one example where I took your words out of context.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 04:56

Actually, you haven't refuted anything I've said. You couldn't deal with even the basic point that a human baby or fetus is a genetically and biologically discrete entity.

As for words taken out of context, here's an example. I wrote: "You ask me to provide 'factual arguments' for deciding what another person does with her body. I'm not interested in providing such evidence." You made a lot of hay out of this but couldn't even see the relatively clear point I was making which is that abortion is not a clear cut matter of a woman deciding what she can do with her body; there's another factor involved which happens to be another human being.

As for statistics, don't be so lazy. Verifying the number of abortions in the U.S. on an annual basis is easy to do. Just look it up. In Canada, the number is about 100,000 per year. In the U.S., it's about a million.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 05:09

That's not a quote out of context; that is an entire quote. Whether you like it or not, the laws and the courts in both Canada and the United States have made it a clear cut matter of a woman deciding what she can do with her body--and that is all that counts.

You made the claims regarding the number of U.S. women obtaining abortions (not that it really matters as far as the issue of a woman's right to obtain an abortion is concerned) and the percentage of U.S. citizens against abortion, it's up to you to provide the sources.

Once again, keep your nose out of the bedroom.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 05:11

Yes, it's a quote but you used it for evidence of a point of view which ignores the context of the quote. Hence, you are abusing my words.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 05:31

"You ask me to provide 'factual arguments' for deciding what another person does with her body. I'm not interested in providing such evidence. I am very interested in providing evidence for deciding what we do with the bodies of pre-born humans." This does not change anything.

And once again, whether you like it or not, law and courts in both Canada and the U.S. have made it abortion a clear-cut matter of a woman deciding what she can do with her body. And by the way, a fetus becomes a human being only after it leaves the womb the same way an egg becomes a chicken only after it is hatched.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 05:35

You make an assertion. On what ground is a pre-born child not a human at nine months of gestation but suddenly a real human a few hours later? That's not a rational opinion. On both sides of birth, we have a biologically and genetically discrete individual with brain waves and a heart beat and ability to feel pleasure and pain but you arbitrarily decide that the one is human and the other is not. That's not logic or science speaking but ideology. And if that ideology is reflected in the laws of some nations, then the law is an ass.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 05:38

It's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world.

Now mind your own business and let those directly concerned decide for themselves just as the law allows them to.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 05:41

Notice again that you have not responded to the central point. You seem to be just playing games.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 05:47

That is the central point, letting women make the decision as to whether to abort without interference from those like you.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 06:58

So you just know what the central point is! Amazing how you give your self this power! Your assuming rather than arguing an answer to what is actually the central point of the whole debate.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 07:06

The central point is letting women decide for themselves without your having any say in their decision, thus forcing you and others of your herd to keep what you consider your morality to yourselves and your dirty little noses out of other people's business.

Emanouel
- 12/25/2012 at 02:28

"It's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world."

No doubt that many women who fall pregnant are unfit to be mothers.
Unwanted children do have a tendency to become crims in later life.

Still, there is no justification for it- abortion is murder or killing.
Just curious robertallen1- do you have any kids?

robertallen1
- 12/25/2012 at 02:30

Get off your high horse and read about Savita Halappanavar.

And yes, there's plenty of justification for abortion.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 21:24

Trust me, I dare. I dare to tell you what I think to be the truth. I dare to expose your hatred and anger. I dare to defend those who can't defend themselves. I dare to go against political correct, progressive thinking. I dare to attack the idols of our time. No amount of intimidation will ever shut me up. It must be hard for you to accept that there will always be people like me ready to be in your face and aggravate you. It must be hard to believe that a significant majority of Americans do not believe in abortion on demand. It's a tough life for a God-hating, baby-killing abortionist.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 21:47

" . . . a significant majority of Americans do not believe in abortion on demand." Where are your statistics?

So now you bring your god whose existence you cannot prove and whom you know nothing about into the matter, how pathetic.

People like you don't aggravate [sic] me, they disgust me.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 21:56

I am just reacting to your words. You clearly don't believe in God. So why get mad when I say that you are god-less.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 22:09

You don't what I believe in that respect and you're neither intelligent nor educated enough to be jumping to any conclusions.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 22:13

Don`t be ridiculous. Of course you don`t believe in God. In an earlier entry, you heaped scorn on people believe in a god whose existence they cannot prove. Concluding that you are not a God-believer isn`t a matter of my intelligence or education. It`s just the implication of your own words.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 22:29

You still don't know what I believe--and don't flatter yourself that you do.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 04:28

Of course I don`t your entire worldview. But you make mockery of what you thought was my belief in God. Fair conclusion: you`re not a Christian theist.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 04:36

You're the one who irrelevantly brought "God" into the picture. You take the consequences.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 04:43

Oh I can take the consequences, no worries. It doesn't look like you can, however, when you stupidly deny the implications of your earlier mockery of God. Of course I know that you are not a Christian theist.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 04:59

Once again, you're the one who irrelevantly brought in "god." This clearly shows the level of the your intellect.

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 05:07

Once again, you're evading my point. Yes, I mentioned God but you reacted and your reaction is the current point of dispute. You deny that your reaction gives clear evidence of your disavowal of Christian theism. That's nonsense.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 05:15

Wonder why you irrelevantly mentioned "god." Is it to prove some non-existent point?

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 05:16

Still evading ...

Achems_Razor
- 12/23/2012 at 23:45

God-less?? I am, when "your" foaming at the mouth psychotic Gods say bless the ones who take and smash the little ones against the rocks...Psalm 137:9

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 04:37

As a pro-abortionist, you shouldn't have any problem with that statement. Every day, little kids are cut to pieces in the womb and you don't have a problem with that. As for the passage in question, there's this little thing called hermeneutics. You should learn about it.

robertallen1
- 12/24/2012 at 04:51

Just what does hermeneutics have to do with a woman's right to an abortion?

cynicfrombc
- 12/24/2012 at 04:52

It has to do with your remarks about an ancient song.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 17:21

See above

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 08:22

In your blind anger and rage, you are unable to understand a very simple logical distinction.

america111
- 12/22/2012 at 02:17

And you have just made the point of the movie comparing the holocaust to abortion. Hitler had to de-humanize the Jews in order to justify killing them. He called them sub-human beings.

Abortion does the same: it has to de-humanize the baby by calling it a parasite, a fetus, or a collection of cells. The very act of doing that labels the baby as sub-human in order to justifiably dispose of the baby.

The genocide in Rwanda happened under the mantra: crush all the cockroaches. Hitler portrayed the Jews as an evil plague in their country. Abortionists call the baby a parasite. Once you dehumanize someone, you can justify their killing.

No, you're the one who compares the holocaust to abortion. One way or the other, abortion is better than bringing an unwanted child into the world--and yes a fetus is biologically a parasite and not human until it comes out of the womb.

At least, we can all be thankful that you're in no position to do anything.

If you're a woman, I'd love to see you go through a horrible, life- threatening delivery after you have been raped.

america111
- 12/22/2012 at 01:44

I dare, even if you dont like it. What it is, IS. Your screaming, calling names , changing names (baby for fetus), won't change the fact you are taking the life out of that human being. I don't appeal to emotion, just call it in all those cases like it is. Incidentally, you were once that small (so, you are NOT a human being now?) and it is my business to defend the helpless.

Once again, if you're a woman, you're an insult to your sex and if you're a man you deserve to be castrated. So mind your own goddam business!

over the edge
- 12/22/2012 at 03:23

america111
where was i "screaming" ? and yes calling a fetus a baby is ignorant

do you have anything to back up your claims ? other than the appeals to emotion or the violation of "goodwin's law"?

please show me the facts to back up "That little human baby is NOT her body" ?

robertallen1
- 12/22/2012 at 03:41

The major difference is that In the Nazi regime, the government made the decision to liquidate, not the individual.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 06:40

What america111 says is true. Pro-abortionists love to use the strategies of intimidation and name-calling which goes to show how shallow or non-existent their arguments actually are. It's very tragic to witness people vehemently defending their right to kill. The darkness in America is nearly complete.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 06:44

What America111 says is as idiotic as what you write. It's pathetic to witness those like you who in their ignorance of the world about them feel that everyone's business is theirs and try to dictate accordingly. Better an abortion than an unwanted child.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 06:54

As usual with abortion-promoters, you don't deal with real arguments. You just lash out in anger. Maybe you are right: better an abortion than angry people like you.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 06:57

Better an abortion that a despicable, meddling piece of garbage like you.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 07:03

You know what, sir, you actually need therapy.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 07:05

You know what, you need to mind your own business.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 07:06

You know, I actually do think a lot of stuff that happens in society is my business. I consider it my business to try to prevent violence, abuse and murder in whatever way possible. This is not meddling. This is the duty of a citizen.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 07:08

Abortion is a matter of individual choice, the woman's. So once again, mind your own goddam business.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 07:13

I think that exposing the fallacies of pro-abortionists is also a matter of individual choice, that of the pro-lifer. So I won't cease to challenge you and your ilk. You all have blood on your hands. And that is my business since your actions affect the kind of society in which I live.

over the edge
- 12/23/2012 at 07:23

cynicfrombc
who here claimed to be "pro-abortionists" ? just like the other poster you twist words to invoke an emotional response.

"As usual with abortion-promoters, you don't deal with real arguments" then present one and i will give agreement/argument based on your statement

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 07:32

"Robertallen" is "pro-abortionist" in the sense that he allows for and defends the right to end pre-born human life through violent means. He may personally regret abortion but he still defends it vigorously and aggressively. That makes him "pro-abortionist."

over the edge
- 12/23/2012 at 07:44

cynicfrombc
again twisting of words. who calls a fetus a " pre-born human " if not to invoke an emotional response? and where did he claim to require "violent means." ? i cannot speak for robertallen1 but for myself i do not claim to know/understand all the underlying circumstances that lead a woman to choose to have an abortion. therefore i will not force my opinion upon them. again what is your best non emotional (factual) argument for deciding what another person does with their own body? please provide facts to back up arguments. if they are medical please provide the peer reviewed evidence if it is a legal issue please provide court decisions, if it is an opinion state it as such. if it is based in some religion please understand that many do not believe

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 07:47

Candidly, a fetus is a "pre-born human." That's not really a matter of debate. Genetically and biologically, it's an obvious fact. As for the expression "violent means," all abortion is violent. You should look at some pictures of what happens to these pre-born humans.

over the edge
- 12/23/2012 at 07:55

cynicfrombc
so no factual arguments?

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 08:00

I've seen them just as I've seen a lot of other things equally as gory. So don't try that tack. It only makes you more despicable than you are, if that's possible.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 07:56

It's the woman's choice, not yours.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 08:02

You're right I'm pro abortionist and I'm also anti everything you seem to stand for in all your ignorance.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 07:23

It's either a sanitary medical facility or a coat hanger, but one way or the other you are not going to prevent women from obtaining abortions--and it is their right to do so. Once again, better an abortion than an unwanted child.

You are no more than an obnoxious meddler who wants to dictate to others--well you can't.

P.S. I have no blood on my hands which goes to show what an ignorant and vile piece of trash you are.

cynicfrombc
- 12/23/2012 at 07:33

As I said, sir, what you call meddling, I call service to society. It's ridiculous to call abortion simply a "personal choice." It's much more than that. It's a societal choice and it affects the whole of society. As for who really is ready for the garbage bin, why don't we allow history to judge that question.

robertallen1
- 12/23/2012 at 07:58

So forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is a service to society. Whether you like it or not, it is a matter of choice and there's nothing you can do about it.

You really are despicable.

america111
- 12/20/2012 at 20:34

Rape is very difficult to bear. So is killing. If you don't think so, go tell that to the mothers of all the innocent children killed recently in the school shooting.
That little human baby is NOT her body. And yes, that will impact her the rest of her life, that is why comiting murder should NOT add to her pain.

america111
how dare you compare abortion to the holocaust or the recent school shooting. your "Appeal to emotion" is not only easy to spot but sad. nobody is killing babies when they have an abortion. you are either ignorant or deliberately twisting the facts.

Emanouel
- 12/23/2012 at 08:12

"nobody is killing babies when they have an abortion"

What a lie.
Who are you to make such a statement?
Be thankful your own mother did not feel the same way about abortion as you do.

over the edge
- 12/23/2012 at 09:16

Emanouel
please do not call me a liar.
i do not believe i have to do this but here is the definition
"A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.".

"Be thankful your own mother did not feel the same way about abortion as you do." and how do i feel about it as you seem to know? you do not know my mother or how she feels about abortion so please do not bring her up

robertallen1
- 12/20/2012 at 20:46

It's better than having the goddam child. If you're a woman, you're an insult to your sex. If you're a man, you deserve to be castrated.

One way or the other, if I were a woman and I were forced to bear a fetus which had been the product of rape, I would miscarry on your doorstep.

Don't insult the intelligence by comparing what happened in Connecticut with abortion and claiming that the fetus is not her body when in fact it is merely a parasite living temporarily inside it.

What women do with their lives and their fetuses is none of your goddam business and don't try to make it so.

america111
- 12/20/2012 at 07:20

Sorry YOU don't understand what a human being is. So you are raped, something violent is done to you, and you turn around and don't rape, but take the life out of that inocent baby? A decent human being is more than to look at the tip ofyour nose, look beyond your pain - to stop the act of violence done to you. Your name calling proves you don't have valid arguments. Get it?

You're the one who doesn't get it. If you're saying that a woman who becomes impregnated through rape must bear the child, you are despicable excuse for a human being.

Get it?

Kateye70
- 12/20/2012 at 17:39

Are you male or female?

I'm guessing male.

Women know, on every level of knowledge there is, what a difficult subject this is, and that no matter what her decision is--*her* body, *her* decision--it will impact the rest of her life one way or another.

Men get to spit and leave, as it were.

robertallen1
- 12/20/2012 at 18:08

If america111 is a woman, she's needs to be impregnated by rape, if a man, he needs to be castrated.

AMFM
- 12/18/2012 at 01:02

He's inciting trouble by asking people to visit "Abortion Clinics." Nowhere was mentioned the wire hangers that women used to abort their pregnancies prior to 1973. If he's so concerned with life, is he campaigning against war? How about the way the Palestinians are treated by Israel? How many children has he adopted or of those in his congregation? How much money has he given to the poor so by chance someone will be able to afford the child, as was part of the conversation here? How about free contraception to high school students to avoid pregnancy? More openness about sex. How about talking about a culture that markets sex to its youth to sell everything from music to underwear? How about the gun culture we have here in the USA? Twenty 6 and 7 year olds killed with a semi-automatic weapon. Why do I never hear outrage about these other issues from the Right-to-Life crowd?

-Abortion. Its a woman's choice full stop. ...I really doubt that most women would want a child from their rapist! All you would think about is where that kid came from and through no fault of your own feel resentment, and wish the kid never existed. POOR KID if that's its future life...*crying , mummy hates me.
god! this guy is a r*tard, he's taking the holocaust & guilting people into feeling bad about abortion *sighhhh, WTF. neither topics have aNything to do with each other at all.
kudos on your MANIPULATION skills. Well done d**che bag.

Well if this guy thinks everyone is a liar, he has no reason to logically believe in god considering his only proof is a bunch of liars told him god wrote a book. I would love some fool like this to try and come use his dumb logic at me. I didn't hate him too much until that god bul****t at the end.

I spent thirty minutes trying to get to the point of this documentary. The Holocaust was a practicing geneocide. Abortion is about the free of women to dicate their lives and bodies. These are two different things. If this documentary was a SAT essay, it would recieve a low grade because it does not connect direct how the Holocaust and abortion on similar.

oh god, an aussie id**t interviewing the most uneducated kids ever. hitler killing jews for reasons of personal hate at a time when being primitive was the way of the world and comparing it to abortion, what a r*tarded spin on things. unborn children are unaware of life period. that's where i personally draw the line. nobody ever wonders about the conditions that child is being born into and asking a bunch of spoiled dopeheads by the beachfront is not good enough to make point with these stupid holocaust comparisons...

Hitler killed by the intention of hate for specific type of race and this is racism, he killed people who are already on this earth and alive not just whom their heart is beating. Hitler killed with his full intention, but when moms get abortion it is like they are asking for a chance to live! The raped mom for example has 9 months to figure out how to find a job to support this child, where to live with this child giving the consideration that one: she is pregnant and her body is not as strong while pregnancy and two her family and friends might not support her because of the "shameful" thing she has committed which is to sleep with a man and have sex without birth control. Keeping the baby in the mom's womb is like killing the mother! killing all of her opportunities, rights, and privileges especially if this mother was a 16 years old teenager! Abortion is harsh, but it is a decision to make to save a young girl's life. because being a mother WILL change your life forever!!!!
one more thought, after learning about science and molecular biology I have learned that through common sense and logic there is no supernatural power than could exist in this world. People thounsands of years ago had so many questions and gaps about the universe and the idea of God pretty much answered all of their questions (just like asking where does human come to exist, it's very overwhelming question if you ask for someone thousands of years ago) but now with modern science we have these questions mostly answered and understood. we understand the world around us now! so the idea of God and supernatural power does not have a place here in 2012! .. besides morality has nothing to do with religion since religion teaches nothing but massive murders (just like Hitler, if you don't believe me look through history of Islam and Christianity) rape and disrespect of human rights and especially women rights (see how women are conveyed in the bible and Quran! it's a shame!) so it was kind of funny for the editor to add a little about the fantasies of hell fire and heaven on there as well! :)

I don't understand the question. Do you mean dubbed? However, the second part remains a mystery.

Achems_Razor
- 07/14/2012 at 00:18

So funny, he probably means throat or nose bot...(cephenemyia) usually found in deer, moose etc: do not know how it could possibly migrate to humans though, lol

Actually just read there have been cases of botfly squirting larvae into human eyes, the larvae have barbs which have to be surgically removed from the pupil.
Anyway this is off topic.

robertallen1
- 07/14/2012 at 01:43

If you can make heads or tails of it, you're a better man than I?

Lori Ferrera
- 07/13/2012 at 01:41

Ray Comfort interviewed a handful of ignorant young people who didn't even know who Adolf Hitler was. If he had convinced legitimate medical professionals, such as physicians and midwives (people who understand fetal development and see first hand the effects of abortion), that abortion can be appropriately compared to the extermination of the Jews during the holocaust ... then his video may have had a valid point.

I agree, he seemed to be questioning certain kind of audiences rather than people who are much more aware of the situation. for example Comfort didn't show the answer of the the old man who said he lost his mother, father, grandmother, and aunt in WWII about abortion! next time he really need to interview people from far more different scope like psychiatrists, scientists (btw %93 of scientists are atheists), as well as college students and street punks like what I see in this video. I mentioned the scientists because their view about fire and heaven is not as primitive as these students. These professional people understand the meaning of common sense and healthy psychology and can see how the supernatural power idea contradict these aspects of life.

robertallen1
- 07/22/2012 at 18:34

He's not about to. They would show him up for the phoney that he is.

Miranda Duncan
- 11/18/2012 at 04:10

Agreed, he spend the last minute trying to trick people's emotions instead of their logical. Showing people baby pictures and starving Jewish people is going to make people emotionally connected to the his subject. I think this is the reason why he ask people if they would kill Hilter.

Jane_Lane
- 07/09/2012 at 08:56

If/then statements do not work like that. Whichever side of the debate you fall on, using specious reasoning and false equivalencies does not help your cause.

I have no doubt that Ray believes he is right, and righteous in his efforts to spread his righteousness - but that by no means makes him so.

I call what I just saw a deceitful interrogation with malicious intent to leverage coercion towards your [ray comfort] opinions, upon malleable minds...and I bet you [ray comfort] loved every minute of it. As did Hitler, as does the church.

DigiWongaDude
the following is just an opinion. rey knows better he has been shown the evidence many times and has had his misconceptions corrected many times by people way more patient than i. he continues to spew his lies because he sells these ideas to others and makes himself rich. if he ever admitted he is wrong he would lose his income and what little undeserved fame he has.

smirkingelf
- 06/15/2012 at 09:54

Any excuse to bring the holocaust back into the picture, there have been many holocausts, why are they insisting on shoving the Jewish one down our throats every opportunity. So sick and tired of hearing about this ****

I had to stop it after the embarrassing question: "Finish the sentence, It's ok to KILL a baby in the womb when..."

That was all I needed to see.

The man is a limbo genius. Limber. He stoops loooooow! You can see the moment in everyone's eyes when they realise they've been tricked. Snaffled like bush turkeys. There was gold tho...When he got them all emotional with Hitler talk then... WHAM! "What about abortion, ass hole?" Ha! Gold.

I tell you what though... It was informative. Learned a lot about me. I think if that insane Neo-Nazi dk-bag headbutted him, it would have been the first time I gave a Neo-Nazi dk-bag a standing, bloody, ovation! That's a heavy burden for me...alright?

Here's a question for the viewer: If you had one bullet in a rifle and Hitler's fetus-packed mum is standing next to Ray Comfort... Who would you shoot?

LOL with you on this, Sensationalist religious fanaticism at it's best. Personally I don't remember any feelings or emotions while incubated inside the womb but religion continues trying to oppress women by dogmatically manipulating peoples thoughts with scaremongering tactics. YAWN!

woody
- 06/11/2012 at 09:49

Why didn't any one in this documentary question "Ray Comfort" about his motives when asking one sided questions? Clearly his questions were meant to corner the people who were being questioned. The editing implies a very weak argument on his behalf.

The only problem is ... there were not even 6 million Jews in Europe
before WW2 ...

But moreover , Hitler ( a jewish name ) was the grandson of a Rothshild
with a jewish mam , Eichmann ( the " architect " of the shoa ) was 108%
jewish , so was Rosenberg ( the Guru of Nazi racial purity " ) !?!

No it didn't, you are an *****. It stood for NAtionalsoZIalismus, or Nationalist Socialist. Which, by the way, has nothing at all to do with Socialism. It takes literally five seconds to look this stuff up. Jesus Christ.

KiKickyKi
- 05/28/2012 at 05:47

How can you be "pro-life" and be in favor of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Drone attacks, and the death penalty. Be consistent and keep your hands off a woman's body. Fetuses are not persons, they are potential persons. We are only persons when we can exist outside the womb. To compare Hitler, who killed people to an abortion which destroys a potential person is a false equivalence. Estimates are as high as 30% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort. That makes God the greatest abortionist there is!

The holocaust and abortion, you cannot compare the two. If you think from the perspective of the woman. You cannot simply the situation with "Its okay to kill a baby in the womb, when..."
There are a million situations - what if you were diagonised with cancer and you had to choose between having a baby and dying, or saving your own life and having children later on.

The interviewer's questions were badly phrased and too leading. This documentary made me so frustrated, I just wish he had interviewed me and I would have been able to let him see things from a different and open-minded perspective.

lol. It is ok to kill a baby in the womb when you are a jewish soldier in the old testament and where ordered by jehova to dash the little ones against the stone, and to cut out the babies of the mothers so that they can watch them die. (bible reference?? if you want to know go find it, for if i tell you you will only google the appoligetic argument.)

Ok ill play Achems' advocate. When do you suppose consciousness comes into play? I.E. when is it fair to say that this fetus has a conscious drive to want to be born? Not the instinctive drive of genetics
, just because thats what it does in these circumstances. But when is it self aware of its own being? Does it ever? Dors anybody have any hard data?

(Im not talking a soul. No religion please. Im talking only from a realistic standpoint. Please.)

Which leads me to another question depending on the answer, of course.

Why does the written introduction above the movie say that the movie is a failure? So much for liberals presenting neutrally....

A woman today asked if it wasn't better for a child to be aborted than to end up in the orphanage....I asked her if she wanted to kill all of the orphans since it was better to be dead....she didn't have an answer.

Yes, it would be better for an child to be aborted than to end up in an orphanage--and this has nothing to do with killing all orphans. Quite frankly, I think this woman is one of your strawmen--it won't wash.

LesterWise
- 05/22/2012 at 20:58

"...Taste the difference, it’s delicious!" - that was a funny post.

There is a lot of arguments about late term abortions. Last trimesters or last few months seeming more viscous to some people's point of view.

Personally, I think abortion should be legal until 4-5.

After that, they start going to school and it would be tough to explain their sudden disappearance.

I like the idea, but you should make it the first blue pop drink, black won't sale...too much competition.
az

AntiTheist666
- 05/22/2012 at 16:43

So witty :-)

Michael Brown
- 05/24/2012 at 19:16

You are just like the neo-nazi in the documentary. If I had to imagine your persona, I would put large bets on that guy.

Jacek Maciag
- 05/21/2012 at 23:00

This documentary or rather an political and religious ad makes me want to stop not abortion but Ray Comfort himself. First of all, I'm convinced it doesn't show all the opinions those ppl had thus making it completely onesided. It also portays people who rarely had to face abortion and did not give the subject enough thought. Think about an example: how easy would it be for you to convince somebody who has never been to Greece, saying that it is beautiful and almost magic to go and live there, while not stating the fact that their economy is hitting the bottom, and there is almost no possibility to survive there. A bit long example but hopefully you get me. That is what I think this doc lacks - balanced opinions.
Secondly, Ray Comfort is a die-hard christian. I wonder why not shoot a documentary on child abuse in church. Thats also a condemning "sin" I guess. When will people learn that what religion only brings about is partition and hatred. Just to be crystal clear I do tolerate religious folks but also I think faith is for the faint-hearted. And I would never accept an argument saying thet belief is the only thing that gives meaning and depth to our lifes. Even such an argument is shallow. Ray Comfort often uses the argument that Bible has the ultimate answer. Well maybe if pre-second world war history was as poorly documented as pre-bible was and people were as poorly educated as back then, Mein Kampf would hold the ultimate answer too. Don't be stupid and always question what others tell you.

Finally, I agree that adoption is a good idea in some of the cases, but not always. It's the only idea I got right from watching the movie.

the topic of the holocaust is somethin which cant be proved one way or another, some believe it happened as claimed, some believe numbers were exaggerated and others believe it never happened. bringing this topic up over and over just creates tensions and feelings of anti-semitism

and the whole bringing up of abortion is getting out of hand! a topic which is ruining meaningful fiscal debate in the current elections!

this documentary concludes very little other a man trying to impose his views on the general public!

There is no other side. The holocaust happened and if you don't believe it, there are still a few survivors to set you straight--and it certainly should be brought up again and again, no matter the so-called tensions and anti-semitism.

Now, what's this about the topic of abortion getting out of hand and by the way what is "fiscal debate?"

musbcrazy
- 05/20/2012 at 21:43

firstly, my comment wasn't a reflection of my own views it was an observation of conflicting opinions in society! my personal view on the holocaust is that of course it did happen but i do feel it has been over represented in the jewish community, millions of others from other minority groups suffered just the same. 11 million the figure in the doc with 5 million not jewish.

i think this world has had about as much division and tension as it can take so stirring up further emotions in my opinion isnt helpful!

the abortion issue, i make myself clear on that also....im pro life but these social issues seem to be dominating the US debate. although i appreciate their significance they are somethin which can be decided on a state level. fiscal means money or monetary...so the economic issues debate, along with foreign policy and liberties. these are bigger issues to be dealt with on a national level but politicians would rather make social issues more important as they dont want to get into bigger problems.

robertallen1
- 05/20/2012 at 21:59

Absolutely not, the social issues, especially as they pertain to individual rights, are far more important than foreign policy or world-wide economics, for they affect us directly and locally.

P.S. And just how do you intend to put an end to this division and tension?

I find it ironic that people can get behind wars that lead to the deaths of 100's of thousands of people, yet they 'wont murder and unborn child'. LOL. I guess once they pop out its time for a bombing.

Suppose that these wars and amoral murders of eastern citizens had large benefit for the masses? You would have no choice but to define it as okay.

robertallen1
- 05/24/2012 at 19:27

That's not what he's saying.

"Suppose that" doesn't count.

Margi Wombok
- 05/20/2012 at 06:45

dislike this doco significantly.... the 'journalist' starts on an acceptable point: hitler was an evil turd and people aren't being taught enough about such historical atrocities. it's f--ked that people are forgetting about that. true. BUT... wtf? he then starts pushing the anti-abortion and christian/jewish agenda. what does abortion or any religious agenda have to the crimes that hitler perpetrated against many people because of many prejudices he held and prayed upon.

"finish this sentence: its ok to kill a BABY in the womb when......" come on! that's blatant emotional deception, praying on people's inability to express themselves clearly in the face of an interrogator. targeting one's fears and morals in such a double-speaking half-truthful manner is utterly unconscionable. he opens up with something everyone will basically agree upon (except for the ignorant and narrow minded 'punk' neonazi dickwad at the beginning) only to turn it around on them and slap them in the face with that, putting them in a corner when it comes to answering such emotionally-charged, agenda-driven questions. his choice of words is deliberately poor and misguiding and ultimately drives one judeo-christian standpoint.

please take this 'documentary' down. this isn't a documentary -this is blatant judeo-christian propaganda. and the narrator/interrogator is FAR from a true journalist. he's just using 'baby killing' and nazi racism as a platform to preach his personal belief systems. NOT INDEPENDENT OR UNBIASSED REPORTING AT ALL.

And this is how conmen work. Posing narrow ideas to maliable people with leading and misleading questions and providing emotional punishment and reward techniques. Oh, and editing the video to insure your point is supported. But, I knew what I was getting into when I chose to watch this documentary.

wow.... 400 hell-a-fun bickerings. fun! You know how I got around the stressful christian arguments? By always saying to them "Thanks but no thanks: I rather get aids than accept jesus in my life..I know there are less side effects. " It works like a charm! try it... it is hilarious.

I'm a very great lover of their beauty (and their nature), too, and am probably even a little jealous of it. Look at the power it gives them! Maybe it would've been better if I had been female, but, then again, like someone said once, I probably would've just sat around and played with my boobs all day, lol.

The bwahahaha was laughter, though, not crying, and was just a little attempt at "sudden absurdity," for want of a better way to put it, not too closely in connection with anything else, and definitely mindless. Sort of a verbal slapstick.

WOW. That whole first paragraph. I feel exactly the same. Well almost. Lol

Laughing, crying, absurd mindless slapsticks are all welcome here. I enjoyed it whatever it was.

Topi Tuulensuu
- 05/19/2012 at 13:20

I was going to criticize the document maker from asking stupid questions about shooting jews or not, but then he started asking about abortion at that point I just wanted to hit him. Playing on stupid peoples emotions like that: "you wouldn't shoot jews would you? Well you are against abortion too right?" This guy is just manipulating thous poor people by putting words in their mouth and twisting their word and more so confusing impressionable viewers.
I hope no one takes anything away from this documentary.

My question is would you consider it elegant and good-mannered to do this for a man?

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 03:58

Are you asking do I treat women and men differently? Of course I do. Differently dosen't mean I regard sex to be a measure of equality. But be very sure that I know the difference.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 04:13

Therefore if you, like most people, treat them differently, you cannot possibly regard them as equal. So welcome to the club.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 03:59

Good manners are universal.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 04:15

By good manners, do you mean western forms of etiquette or etiquette in general. Even if you mean the latter, I'm not altogether certain.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 04:28

Don't confuse manners with etiquette.

I still do not understand why differently has anything to do with inequality. You seem to want that stipulated. I would rather you explained why different is unequal.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 04:35

To me, good manners = etiquette.

By definition, different implies inequality.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 04:51

Different does not imply inequality. Does not 7 + 1, an equation different from 6 + 2, equal only eight as the second equation .

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 04:54

I look at it this way: 7+1=6+2. So both are equal as one can be substituted for the other.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 05:02

Exactly.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 05:03

However, try substituting men for women or vice versa and you might run into a few problems.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 05:12

Where would I run into a problem? Do you not think a woman is just as representative of Homo Sapien as a male?

And I ask you once again why it implies inequality.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 05:28

As representative as a peacock and a peahen to their species. So what, you can't substitute one for the other and hence they are unequal.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 05:39

Wrong analogy.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 05:43

In which way? Both are as representative of their species as women and men are representative of theirs.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 05:01

Still please explain why it implies. You keep saying this again and again in one form or another. Tell me why it implies inequality.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 05:25

Continuing with mathematics, 3.14.......... is close to, but not equal to pi in the same way that women are close to but not quite equal to men.

You've admitted that women are different from men; you seem to agree that in general men react differently to them as opposed to other men and I believe you've accepted my examples from the troglodyte world of sports. So to put it mathematically, woman ? man as opposed to 7+1=6+2.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 05:29

I admit difference but you will not explain why difference means unequal. You seem to want that to be a given but I wish to hear why a man and woman are unequal simply because they are different.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 05:41

I'm sorry, but I really can't explain it any differently that I have. If you can't substitute A for B and vice versa, A and B are not equal and therefore must be different.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 05:58

Who says you cannot substitute A for B. Once again you are making a statement you want me to stipulate. Why cannot A be substituted for B. Explain.

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 10:20

Equality and sameness are two different things, neither sex is better and you can't have one without the other. Women are not as physically strong as men, granted, but if you challenged me to a duel (and if I had ever even held a gun before!) either one of us could end up as fertiliser ;)

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 15:30

Your right. The normative judgment is irrelevant here. And if you go back to my original answer to you in which I applauded you for being such a poor feminist, you will find that I never stated that one sex is better than the other.

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 17:05

True, you didn't. It does make me wonder though how a woman would return the manners, can't think of any equivalent. And no 'angel in the kitchen, lady in the living room' comments, we like our cake and eat it! ;)
Edit, I am informed by my other half that that is exactly what men expect. Also that I score well in two out of three, apparently I ought to talk less. Needless to say, privileges are withdrawn til further notice! :)

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 18:16

I am not sure what you mean by "return the manners."

And speaking of the "angel in the kitchen." I'll never forget Billary's disgusting pronunciamento that women should stop baking cookies and get out of the kitchen. Like most feminists, Billary feels called upon to dictate to all women. It is beyond her understanding that some women like to bake cookies and mind the homestead while others desire to make a career for themselves--and that, whether she likes it or not, both alternatives are acceptable.

P.S. If your other half doesn't want you, there are probably a number of posters on this site who do. So open up those options.

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 18:46

Watch it there Mr A, you're getting funnier the longer you spend here :) return the manners as in return the favour, you men have chivalry and we have... What?
Don't know what to say about the cookie lady, think she must not like cookies very much. Or maybe her mum wouldn't make her any. Poor soul :(
As for the P.S, I'm flattered you think it possible but I have my doubts. And in spite of my Man's naff sense of humour I am crazy in love and terribly loyal :)

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 18:51

Men have chivalry and women have--and you do know.

P.S. Remain flattered.

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 18:54

Oh, it's true then! In that case I do know. Men!
P.S, Thankyou :)

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 19:04

The only ones who don't seem to know are Catholics and from what's come out recently, I think they only pretend.

P.S. Do you like Noel Coward?

________________________________

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 19:15

They know it, they just worry about it too much. Don't know much about Noel, I do like Blithe Spirit though.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 19:34

And now everyone has to worry about it to the tune of damaged lives and billions of dollars. I say tax the churches.

P.S. When it came to dealing with the Pope, Henry VIII had the right idea.

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 20:10

What a windfall that would be, imagine all the children it would save, all the people that would benefit from hard cash instead of stern words and archaic rules. Henry inventing his own church was vanity and childish foot stamping. Spoilt boy! He made himself defender of a faith that was catholic in all but name, can't go ostracising (sp? ) all your subjects on such a whim as a woman ;) Very beautiful armour, incredible craftsmanship. Here endeth my knowledge of Henry. Except to say that I worked at Anne of Cleves house for a while, only two rooms over a coach house when she was there.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 20:56

And even better, it might put most of the churches out of business and think of the constructive use we could find for the buildings and their accoutrements. Of course, it would throw a lot of clerics out of work, but there's always the fields, the stables and the ditches.

Although I much prefer his daughter, I can't help but like a monarch who during those times, peaceful as they were, tells the Pope where to go and in essence anoints himself Pope of his newly-founded church, sort of a precursor to Martin Luther, Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard.

And speaking of churches, a few years ago, following in Henry's footsteps, I tried to found one of my own: The Cash and Carry Church of Jesus. Love gifts included, computers, television sets and Lamborginis for which "donations" were exacted. While there was only one cardinal sin, an NSF check, forgiveness for bankruptcy could be sought and obtained at the confessional which was shaped like a teller's window. I was even thinking of presenting a public offering, but ----

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 19:07

So does everyone else, except perhaps Catholics, but from what's recently come out, I think they just pretend.

P.S. Do you like Noel Coward?

John
- 05/19/2012 at 00:36

A single human ovum and a single spermatozoon are both so infinitesimally tiny that you practically need a microscope to see them. It is the height of ignorance to even imagine that removing this tiny, tiny, tiny, clump of cells is "murdering" a "person". There is no sane, intelligent, reasonable, fact based argument against early term abortions. If you take a shower everyday, then you "murder" more LIVING cells than an early term abortion. Late term abortions are a different story. Late term abortions should only be allowed if carrying the baby to term will jeopardize the health or life of the mother, and perhaps if it is determined that the fetus is severely deformed. But, of course, the christian 'wrong' don't care about facts, evidence, or reason. They only want to force their narrow religious beliefs on everyone. There was a period when Christianity ruled the world -- it's known as The Dark Ages.

Or perhaps it is determined that the fetus will be still-born. By the way, what exactly do you mean by late-term abortions? Also, by health are you referring to both physical and mental?

It's amazing how the Christian apologists rationalize the history of forcing of their narrow religious beliefs down people's throats by terming those who did so not real Christians. Yet, if given half a chance, all too many contemporary Christians would gladly follow in the footsteps of their ancestors--especially Catholics.

Chrispy777
- 05/19/2012 at 08:03

Once again, John, the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian, by any standard....biblically, historically, or present-day society. Using your argument against you; think of a pilot in a military bomber, at an altitude of 40,000 feet. From his perspective, we're nothing but a tiny, tiny, tiny, clump of cells. He could drop a bomb on us, not seeing, and perhaps not caring, at the destruction of those "tiny clumps of cells," below him. "Yeah, but I'm alive!" you would cry out....... exactly. That "insignificant" clump of cells is life, and there's hard science behind that statement. Now, I just gave you a sane, intelligent, reasonable, fact-based argument against the disposing of life, however humble. Will you agree with me? I won't hold my breath, because then you would have to admit that you were wrong, and your pride would never allow that. I can also expect that robertalien will read this, and have some demeaning comments of his own.....also one who is overly proud of his intellect, and unfailing logic. Oh, well....."and the beat goes on"...........until he/she is aborted.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 14:46

There you go again, saying what is Christian and what isn't and basically speaking from ignorance.

As for that insignificant clump of cells being life, the same describes a tumor, i.e., there is nothing special about it.

And no, you have not given "an intelligent, reasonable fact-based argument against disposing of life." You've merely reiterated your dogma.

Achems_Razor
- 05/19/2012 at 15:43

By that same analogy why would your so called gods give a hoot about us almost invisible carbon units taking into perspective the size and vastness of the universe since we were here in the time scale of the universe as long as a neutrino striking a hydrogen atom, a mere flicker, and then you have the sheer audacity to say you have a pipeline to your gods and everything was made just for us.

Funny religee's.

Michael Brown
- 05/24/2012 at 18:59

Quite wrong, by the very same analogy God does give a hoot about not pressing the fire button, for the sole reason, irrelevant of arbritrary measurements of space ... that there is an active potential for a unique human life.

robertallen1
- 05/24/2012 at 19:02

How do you know so much about God?

Achems_Razor
- 05/24/2012 at 19:38

Like @robertallen1: asked, how do you know so much about god?

Oh wait! you must be religious and of course have a pipeline to all the invisible friends/deities in your mind, because that is the only place that they reside, strictly in the mind, not real!

robertallen1
- 05/24/2012 at 19:43

I sometimes wonder if the same can be said about pure mathematics.

Guest
- 05/24/2012 at 19:43

Not to argue, but concerning the perception of life, most concept live in the mind first before it is acknowledged as living in the real..
az

robertallen1
- 05/24/2012 at 19:47

How about mathematics, engineering and architecture?

Guest
- 05/24/2012 at 20:07

yes all concepts exist in the mind first.
az

later....off to work.

robertallen1
- 05/24/2012 at 20:12

Wrong. You obviously have not read about the histories of the three disciplines I've mentioned.

Achems_Razor
- 05/24/2012 at 20:25

Az...Well yes, but I always go deeper as you know, there is no living in the real, real what? what is real? nothing, all is illusion. The Matrix lol.

Everything is in the mind, where else can it be, out there? and only by our thoughts, intents and actions we make it so into our collective corporeal reality by collapsing the waveform from the unlimited sea of probabilities. Can't put it any simpler, and this is not from Deepak Chopra lol, it is from reputable quantum physicists.

Guest
- 05/25/2012 at 01:24

Exactly! Nothing is real but we human stamp it as reality once it becomes accepted as such by the known standards.
Everything is in the mind.
@eireannach666 (is it ok to shorten this name, hard to remember..how about e6?)
I would guess conciousness comes into a child with the first contact. He/she is touched, something it never felt before.
There may be an instant when the thought: "what is that" soars. Then after, conciousness grows like a sprout coming out of the dirt.
az

Achems_Razor
- 05/25/2012 at 02:05

Just call him eire666... there is always consc. of the body, the autonomic nervous system etc: consc. comes into the fold when the child recognizes himself, the consc of I as you say, you know, I have spelled "consciousness" about 20,000 times so far, still get it wrong, driving my spell checker nuts, so will abbrev from now on.

I also believe that the consc, keeps on growing until it can not reach any further heights.

Guest
- 05/25/2012 at 04:24

I think conciousness keeps growing until death. May be my analogy to a sprout is not bad. Although all trees reach a certain maximum heights, it keeps on growing until it falls to the ground.
My father is living something entirely new with the intervention he just had, his conciousness is making him be aware of a dimension he never knew existed. At 77 he has reached a certain height but now he is becoming wider with small details, like an oak tree.

Concerning a child, i believe conciousness arises not by recognizing oneself but by being aware of exterior mouvement. Then the conciousness of the self immerges slowly by flapping one's hands around, putting fingers in the mouth, slapping one self, kicking and feeling objects with feet. The recognition that those members are of the self comes weeks later.
az

eireannach666
- 05/25/2012 at 06:57

@Az
You can shorten it as youd like kitten. As long as you keep it nice.

So you say at the moment of touch. Achems says nervous system. I agree with Achems. Ill say why.

Az /Achems what do you think the conscious mind is doing up to that point? Is it operational prior to the full nervous system being made? Surely the subconscious mind is also being uploaded. Dna has no consciousness or does it pocess a more subtle version. Afterall it will assert its copy me instructions when triggered. Elaborate if you will.
(Ep needs in on this.)

They say at 9 or 10 weeks the fetus has a developed a operational nervous sys. Can feel pain. Also most importantly to my stance, starts a database. Goes from upload to download ic you will.

Pysmythe
- 05/25/2012 at 07:28

I'm not quite sure I'd call it consciousness, but fetuses have been observed on ultrasound actually masturbating. My own suspicion (I'm not a psychologist) about consciousness is that it must take language to fully kick it into gear. I think that must be one reason we retain so few memories from early childhood: We don't have words yet to form concepts or assign meanings, as though we need not only the images but some kind of critique of them before they're laid down in our minds... or else we don't even preserve the images.

CANADAIAN
- 05/25/2012 at 07:52

I seen in a doc that the lobe or gland, for memory, isn't fully developed until we about three I think. Kinda like the liver and knee caps. There is another part that is developed pertaining to things like motor skills.

Pysmythe
- 05/25/2012 at 20:49

I thought memories are are actually saved in many different parts of the brain, perhaps as a bulwark against head-trauma and potentially losing everything as a result... but I could be wrong. I think I saw a doc, or an article, having something to do with this subject, too, but... I just can't remember! lol.

CANADAIAN
- 05/27/2012 at 07:58

Its in Zeigeist moving forward around 26:30. Watching it again right now, not at all the doc I was thinking. And its 18 months not 3 years.

eireannach666
- 05/25/2012 at 10:47

Well once we start multiplying our neurons its over. Neurons are everything. They are our files and database. In fact you now have an eire666 neuron. Youre welcome. It will trigger everytime you see my name or think it. Everytime your senses pick of anything they send it to the database as a copy. Remember that when you warch t.v. or those hideous colmercials. Lol laterz

over the edge
- 05/25/2012 at 12:44

@eireannach666
i know it is frowned upon to go off topic but i think this one will be allowed. vlatko started a new site with lectures and debates called "keen talks" it's very good. you can find it on page four of recently added docs (as of this post).

eireannach666
- 05/25/2012 at 13:50

Ok thanks my friend. Ill look into it. Cheers.

Pysmythe
- 05/25/2012 at 20:38

Neural connections are everything, more specifically, lol. Which must be why infants never have "much of a consciousness" in retrospect. I suppose you could say (though it would probably be inaccurate) that neurons communicating with each other is the actual, fundamental language, and words are just our usual way of accessing what THEY have had to say, lol.

eireannach666
- 05/25/2012 at 21:21

Sorry. But neurons ARE the key to being in any state of mind. However you make a good observation. Please tell me what fqcts make you say this?

Pysmythe
- 05/25/2012 at 21:29

I simply meant that neurons need connections with other neurons in order to do what it is they are meant to do: i.e., generate consciousness. Isolated neurons would be pretty useless, it seems to me, without friends to play with. Kind of like a patient in a vegetative state... There, but not there, in effect.

eireannach666
- 05/25/2012 at 22:18

Ahhh. Ok. Gottcha. And i agree. But they are conscious. Nonresponsive maybe physicly but they are still responsive as in brainbactivity. Glad you clarafied. That was funny.

Well whatbdo you say of the other proposed questions?

Pysmythe
- 05/25/2012 at 22:26

Well, as it turns out, I have to go shopping for a big, juicy steak to feed those neurons here in just a minute, lol. But I'll try to give you some kind of response a little later on this afternoon, ok?

eireannach666
- 05/25/2012 at 23:10

Ok. Thanx again.

Pysmythe
- 05/26/2012 at 05:05

I've (re)looked over the above posts and am having a little trouble deciding exactly what to cull in order to give my views on... More material is actually covered, or suggested, than would maybe be apparent at a glance! I'm fairly well-read and informed, but definitely not anything like an expert on the subject... But I'm going to assume that the question you'd like addressed is "when does consciousness really begin?"

Seems that would be a very tough one even FOR the experts, lol. I'm not even sure the nature of consciousness has even been decided yet, has it? By which I mean: WHAT it is, exactly. HOW is it that "a mere neural net" generates something as grand as self-awareness? The WILL comes into play here in the management of it, too, but how, precisely, or when, IS that? And to take the solipsistic view, how can we even ever really be certain about other consciousnesses? And yet the answer to THAT one seems so blatantly obvious, doesn't it?! Like a consensus, but a consensus of whom?

Turing machines...
The Pygmalion myth...
(And a bunch of other stuff in the Wikipedia article, lol)

My own personal intuition about self-awareness goes back to the language thing, that such a method of writing to the hard-drive is necessary for true consciousness. We do not KNOW that we were ever infants, so can we say we were ever really there, outside of someone else assuring us that we were?... That we were a lively baby, a loving baby, etc., can only be known at second-hand, and so we weren't yet conscious BECAUSE of a lack of awareness of anything outside of ourselves, and our own needs, existing; that consciousness only becomes manifest once you become truly aware of your separateness from the world, and have a firm means to define it, outside of, for example, the instinctual reactions to pain or pleasure. But perhaps there are gleans here and there that any hard and fast rule about needing language for consciousness, to write to the drive, isn't always absolutely necessary, and one of them from my own experience: When I was 13 months old, they tell me I contracted pneumonia and had to be hospitalized. The earliest memory of which I'm sure, you might say the first instance of separateness, I can recall, is of being in a bed, with a clear tent over it, and of a large man with black-rimmed glasses looking in on me, who was apparently my grandfather who had come to visit me during my stay. I'm certain that at the time any language skills I may have had were quite miniscule, so it may be that the emotion and stress of the entire series of events leading to my being there somehow made for the preservation of that single image. Interestingly, the next earliest memory I have of my own uniqueness from the world dates from 2 years after that event, during a time when my language skills were undoubtedly much more developed.

eireannach666
- 05/26/2012 at 08:12

I really enjoyed this response. I agree with alot. I must go for now but rest assured that i will reply. Thank you for answering seriously.

Guest
- 05/26/2012 at 09:17

to know the awareness of a child, you can't count of your memory, you got to look into the eyes of a new born and then you have no doubt there is awareness. You then realize that quite possibly this child will forget the awareness exchanged on that moment but you won't ....ever....ever
may be it's a mom thing....but with you, i kinda think you know what i mean.
az

Pysmythe
- 05/26/2012 at 10:17

Oh, definitely! And I really should be careful about how I'm using the definition of achieving consciousness here... I do largely mean it simply as "the point at which the self is able to become aware of itself as a separate entity in life." I don't mean to in any way belittle or undermine the beauty and importance of infancy, or its significance on the child's future development of that as-of-yet incomplete consciousness. On my beloved Bali, the newborns there aren't even permitted to touch the profane ground for the first 210 days of their lives, nor are they given names yet, because they are considered newly-come from heaven and are too sacred for such things. They are carried everywhere for the duration, after which a religious ceremony is performed, their little feet are gently tapped on the ground, and they are finally welcomed into the human family and given a name. While I can't agree with the theology behind this (in THIS incarnation? lol), there is something so human and beautiful about this level of reverence for a newborn that is deeply moving to me.

dewflirt
- 05/26/2012 at 10:44

I have often wondered when it is a baby discovers it is separate from everything around it, when it is a thing itself. When you look into the face of a baby you can almost see them switch on sometimes, as if they've been on standby. They seem only exist in relation to other people, who knows, they probably don't even know the cot or their parents arms aren't part of them. I thought maybe when they start moving on purpose, when they focus properly and are able to move their heads. I even have doubts about that, it might just be that the world is changing around them and not them changing their view of the world. If you think about it we teach them that they have hands and tiny toes and tummies by touching them. Self awareness grows with the child, and I think the space between itself and other stuff is probably as important as contact with things. I don't think there is a point at which it happens. Even kids leaving home are still connected to their parents so maybe we are never totally self aware or independent. We measure ourselves by our relationships, experiences etc. Some people aren't even comfortable having thoughts of their own in case it puts them apart from others. Knowing your body is separate is not the same as understanding you exist as an individual. This is one of those thoughts that could go on forever and ultimately I'll come to know nothing more that I did at the start. Nice to get home after a long journey though. Next time I'm reincarnated I'll bring my old brain along for the ride and tether it to the new one and take notes ;)

Pysmythe
- 05/26/2012 at 21:06

You are an old soul, Dew. :)

dewflirt
- 05/26/2012 at 21:16

Funny boy :)
Edit, in the best possible way :)

Werner Breedt
- 05/26/2012 at 23:41

What interesting conversations. It is very refreshing to have so many valuable comments to read, thank you!

I also find consciousness a wonderfully tricky concept. When we speak of consciousness, do we mean an awareness of the environment, or an awareness of the fact that we are aware?

An awareness of all life certainly seems evident in countless organisms on earth. They react to their environments in seemingly intelligible ways, and evolve over time. When we consider the problem of consciousness, should our goal be to find a definition suitable to all life, or simply for the human experience? I find the larger dimension of consciousness rather daunting, but I'm thoroughly pleased to be bothered by it. :)

If feel the fact that all humans share a childhood amnesia, a time of utter unconscious experience during infancy, is very telling. Imagine you are relaxing on a park bench, watching a young child playing nearby. They are thoroughly engrossed in their world, exuberant and full of boisterous explosions of emotion. After some time, they notice you watching them, and their gaze shifts across to meet yours. Their face ripples with expression; it is clear there is life behind their eyes.

If our experiences of infants clearly show an animated, conscious individual, while our experiences of ourselves as infants clearly shows a lack of awareness of self, could we draw the conclusion that animal and child life is largely lived unaware? That life could act consciously without ever being conscious of its consciousness?

dewflirt
- 05/27/2012 at 09:42

I think to understand consciousness as the same as that of any other living thing we would have to put aside our egos and believe that we are no more important than anything else. Here on earth we feel important, that we are the copestone of intelligence. If we look out into space, all that (for me) flies out of the window and we go from top to bottom in no time flat, suddenly we are dust by comparison. Children have no idea of their place in the world, it extends only as far as their tiny horizon, their world is an intimate place. For a baby that world shrinks again, which is why I think self awareness grows with the child. If you watch when a baby first starts to pick things up, often they seem to forget that they have, or that they can let go. It's as if anything they touch could as easily be a part of them as their hand. It takes practice to know that some bits are you and some bits aren't. So I'm not sure either way whether we should look for a one size fits all definition of consciousness, I can't begin to understand how a baby thinks, nor how any other creature does. Maybe they think in similar ways, it's just our ever complicated surroundings that keep moving us humans up the scale. But then we could get lost in the search for the spark that set us in this direction whilst other animals kept it simple. You're right though, when you see a little one playing its almost overwhelming, infinite possibilities because they don't know our limits yet. And for your last sentence, I think that might be possible, anything is :)

Guest
- 05/25/2012 at 18:05

perhaps life=consciousness, so as little as we know, even a sperm might have consciousness although not a consciousness we can define being what we are, being what it is.
Is a tree conscious? not in term of how we define consciousness, but would the consciousness of a tree think that we humans are conscious?
The only place these answers could be found is perhaps in death...where again an other kind of consciousness may behave.

I am curious have you had a child? i should say has any woman have a child of you?
az

eireannach666
- 05/25/2012 at 18:52

I say trees and plants also other animals and life are aware for sure. Would you like examples? I can provide them.

Its a less evolved consciousness. It to evolved throughout time. Along side ourselves too.

I raised my exs daughter from 5yrs to 18yrs old. Im a godfather to my niece which i help raise. Why may i ask? Im not offended just curipus as to how come or what made you ask,kitten?

Guest
- 05/25/2012 at 19:20

totally agree with conciousness of trees...just don't have a clue how it is felt by the heterochthonous...lol

I was wondering if you had had the opportunity to look in the eyes of a newborn for hours on, day in day out.

I became a grand mother almost 2 yrs ago, i have had the pleasure to be very much part of my grand son's life....a lot during the first 6 days and a lot after too.

So many questions comes to mind when gazing in the eyes of a newborn.
az

eireannach666
- 05/25/2012 at 19:38

I coulndt agree more. I have indeed seen through your eyed. I understand. Thats why i get a bit upset about the deviciveness and abbusive way religion inflicts or id demanded upon these kids. We are all born atheiest. But are potentially coheresed into belirf or even threatened by death or death after death etc

I like you. Youre really a good conversation.

Pysmythe
- 05/25/2012 at 20:53

We are all also born with a predisposition to obey the authority of our elders for our own good, which religions are able to utilize to their advantage.

eireannach666
- 05/25/2012 at 21:19

Thats a genetic trait not a conscious awareness. Like being afraid of heights etc.. its instinct.

Pysmythe
- 05/25/2012 at 21:34

But, in regards to my comment, it really doesn't much matter which one it is, does it? Just think of that old Jesuit adage: "Give me the child and I will give you the man."

robertallen1
- 05/25/2012 at 21:35

I wonder if we are predisposed to obey the authority of elders or it's really something drummed into us in childhood and out of us by experience (religees excepted).

The same with phobias. I once knew a person who never gave ants a second thought until she was hypnotized into believing that they were crawling all over her body. For the rest of her life, she couldn't look at an ant without dread. Until I was 13, I never gave a second thought to crossing the street until I was nearly struck by a careless motorist. To this day, I experience mild trepidation (agliophobia) everytime I cross a busy intersection,

John
- 05/19/2012 at 00:16

Another piece of ridiculous nonsense from the christian 'wrong.' No evidence, no facts, just emotional hype -- as usual. In a perfect world these fascists nutjobs would be in psychiatric hospitals where they belong. But... this is America. In this country, if you say and do crazy insane things and don't invoke the name of God or Jesus, then you are crazy and get sent to the nuthouse. But if you say and do exactly the same crazy things while invoking God/Jesus, then you are just being religious, and we are supposed to "respect " that. I've traveled a great deal and you rarely see this in other countries. But it's perfectly normal in the U.S.

LOL! You are one, funny, dude! Someone makes the stunningly ridiculous example of "murdering" more live cells by taking a shower, than by aborting a tiny clump of fetal cells, and you say, "Well put." And you dare to claim that you're guided by logic and reason!! I'd keep laughing, if the subject matter wasn't so serious, but people like you just prove the bible to be true, again and again. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 14:51

A denial is not a refutation--but this probably goes over your head.

If all you can do is quote from your damn Bible, you don't have a leg to stand on.

brandyv88
- 05/18/2012 at 23:12

Women should have the rite to chose.The world is over populated enough, at least if people have the choice there will be less un-wanted an un-taken care of children living in poverty,some women have a hard enough time getting buy now a days.The last thing some of us want is a child we cant afoid to have an take care of.When i decide to have a kid it'll be when im ready an want it.

Right you are, but you need very much to improve your English composition.

Guest
- 05/18/2012 at 23:56

Wouldn't the composition of your phrase be right, if you wrote:

Right you are, but you (very much) need to improve your English composition.
Very much??? how about greatly, highly.
az

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 23:30

Right you are, but please do something to improve your spelling.

Jessie Wyatt
- 05/18/2012 at 22:08

Cringe. This guy breaks about every logical fallacy known to man. Like questioning a bunch of idiots about who Adolf Hitler is. What educated person doesn't know who he is. He is deceiving people. Despicable.

Dumb doc, I left wondering what this guy was trying to say. I was surprised how many kids didn't know who Hitler was, don't they watch the history channel? Funny thing about Hitler, we will see another one soon in the future

Abortion is a religious and legal subject, seems like it always was, even a culinary one.

"Aristotle considered the embryo to gain a human soul at 40 days if male and 90 days if female; before that, it had vegetable and animal souls."
Funny how in his opinion, a female who was a carrier was a human 50 days later than a male. Oh Ya, he was a man!

"An 8th century Sanskrit text instructs women wishing to induce an abortion to sit over a pot of steam or stewed onions."
az

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 19:01

This time you've actually nailed it, for we all know when religion sticks its sanctimonious nose into anything.

TERRY SHor
- 05/18/2012 at 14:38

David says in the Psalms that we are fearfully and wonderfully made ; God also tells Jeremiah 1:5 , Before l formed thee in the belly l knew thee ; and before thou camest forth out of the womb l sanctified thee ,,,,,, so l think if you believe the Bible ? which l do ! then whoever takes contraception and kills the eggs in the womb is a murderer ????????

According to you, a lot of people on TDF were once stupid, even some of our smartest ones.
az

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 16:51

Those who use the Bible as their sole source of ethics and morality are basically stupid and ignorant.

Guest
- 05/18/2012 at 17:45

What about those who study every word of it in order to deny it's meaning....what a waste of time in my opinion.
az

Guest
- 05/18/2012 at 18:20

.....

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 18:58

You obviously need more study.

Guest
- 05/18/2012 at 20:12

Every day i learn many things by choosing what's important for me and my surrounding. The bible would bring nothing in my life that isn't there already, at least nothing of additional value over other things.
az

docfeind
- 05/18/2012 at 14:14

Great fear mongering and terror tactics. This is just substance substituted for music. This must be the most common tool of the Cristian church. What a joke of a doco there are so many flaws in his argument the way he interviews and edits.. what an idiot. OMG modern day holocaust right under my nose!! (That explains the 6 billion people in the world) i think what ive got out of this is the parallels between Hitlers regime and the church. ones just a compressed version of the other false god, world domination plans, mass murder, i think its needless to continue you get my direction.

Have some statistics, all available online :)
7 million single parent families in the UK, 1.6% of which are single fathers. 47% of these families live BELOW the poverty level.
£4billion is owed in maintenance by absent parents.
A working single parent using the child support agency to claim maintenance must pay £100 for the service and the CSA then takes 7 -12% of any payments.
Unemployed single parents receiving maintenance payments through the CSA will have any payments deducted from their benefits.
Living below the poverty threshold = substandard housing in areas where crime, alcohol and drug abuse are prevalent, missed meals, malnutrition, children are more likely to die in accidents, are twice as likely to suffer longstanding illnesses, have a lower birth weight, be shorter, have poor school attendance. In adulthood they are more likely to turn to drug and alcohol abuse, turn to crime, be unemployed and become involved in abusive relationships. They are also more likely to end up in the care system, as are their own children.
And just so you can feel a little bit better, 77% of all abortions carried out in England and Wales last year took place before 10 weeks.
So I would argue that girls do not have babies so they can sit on their backsides and live the good life on benefits and maintenance payments, nor do they have babies so that they can get a council house, there are few left seeing as a string of governments decided to sell them off at a pittance and have failed to replace them.
Abortion and pregnancy amongst young teens has fallen, education and an increased uptake of contraception is working. It's now girls between 20 and 24 that use the service most, and women in relationships, so guys, don't feel left out, you must be in on these decisions too. Make sure you discuss your contraceptive options with your doctors. Condoms are not the only fruit, it's not all up to the ladies in your lives ;) More sex, more chance of becoming pregnant!
As the saying goes, it takes a community to raise a child. If you really want to reduce the need for abortion, put yourself out a bit. Offer your help and support, whether that's a bit of babysitting or inviting people round for dinner when you know they're skint and the cupboards are empty. There's nothing tougher than doing it all alone :)
Edit- would like to add that 16% of abortions were carried out on married women, most of whom did so between 11 and 17 weeks. Must be more difficult to make the decision if it has to be shared.

I wasn't suggesting that young girls having babies for payments (and a child they wanted, while wanting the father...not so much) is an epidemic, but I can tell you for a fact that it does happen. My stepson is 3 years older and wiser now, married to another woman, and with a child by her on the way right now. But he works and has NEVER missed a child-support payment to the girl who told him to his face that she only ever wanted the baby anyway... And he was with her for nearly a year after the child was born, but these are the kinds of things she would constantly tell him, so... (And she apparently does want to sit on her backside; she had a job up the road at a retail outlet for about a month.)

Women ( and ESPECIALLY young girls) are not saints, any more than men are, and they are not always victims, either (her family lives in a nice neighborhood), and sometimes they do have motives... which is exactly one very big reason his mother and I tried very hard to talk with him seriously about birth-control, but he had to just run with his rod, anyway, like an awful lot of young men, and look at where he's at now, paying $350 a month that would've been better spent on his own family.

It's all his fault, I know that, for not using birth-control, or simply abstaining, and I do not feel sorry for him, but that he was "set up" by this girl I think would be pretty clear to you if you knew her like we do.

Not trying to be contentious with you, Dew, you know I like you very much. But every circumstance is different.

dewflirt
- 05/18/2012 at 20:31

Ha ha! I love it when you're shirty ;)
Mr P, I was not in any way aiming that post at you and your boy, as you said, sh*t happens. I'm in no position to judge anyone, least of all a couple of youngsters bent on discovering 'things' for themselves. Nor would I blame the parents, you can lead a horse to water....
I just thought that in amongst the emotion and opinion there was room to squeeze a few little facts, maybe take the heat off the ladies a bit. Looks like their outnumbered 15 - 1 in this discussion, maybe I'm being gobby enough for about 20? Don't need to explain yourself P, your just sticking up for your boy, I like that! You'd have to try harder than that to make me fall out with you :)

Pysmythe
- 05/18/2012 at 22:36

Lol. As rash as that boy has been known to be, he would NEED a lot of sticking up for!

For what it's worth, here, in a nutshell, is what I think about abortion:

I believe that women should have the choice, but I also believe the system is imperfect, albeit much better than the alternatives. Women do (as of yet!) the majority of the child-rearing, and the whole process, from conception to graduation, obviously takes a much greater toll (not just physically, but mentally, as well) on them than men, generally speaking. What bothers me is the precise language people sometimes use in describing this right to choice (not you, I mean, but elsewhere in these comments), which would suggest that a man has no right to say anything about the subject, because he has no vested interest in it, which obviously does not make any logical sense whatsoever. What's more, we are not, in fact, talking about tumors here, which, if left to natural devices, would be as likely as not to grow and consume their hosts. However the egg has to be incubated, clearly it would not have gotten there without a rooster. We are talking about a process that, left to its natural courses, will use half of a man's genetic material in the formation of a separate human life. The product is therefore still a part of his body, even if it cannot be brought to bear INSIDE his body. So what the system has done is weighed a doubt against a certainty, and justly given the woman the preponderance of power in determining what happens with her body. But that a man may be seriously injured by her choice, and that he even has a RIGHT to be, is sometimes not acknowledged at all by those who don't think deeply enough about this issue. The system says that, all things considered, it is better for a woman to have the choice, even though another party may be adversely affected by that choice. So when the more militant scream "Get your laws off of my body," I get, I feel justifiably, a little annoyed, because it is not only their body that the law sees fit to aid in the governance of.

Guest
- 05/19/2012 at 00:10

What i get from your comments is that there are a lot of women out there who would love to have a father who cares as much as you seem to about their pregnancy and the kids that follows but unfortunately often times, those are the guys that get hurt by the loss.
az

Pysmythe
- 05/19/2012 at 00:59

Or the girls that get hurt by a loss...and have to make a difficult decision on their own...
Her genetic-information, her choice, because it's her body.
Our genetic-information, her choice, because it's her body.
I tolerate abortion because it's the better choice... Sometimes men just have to bite it for that reason...

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 00:49

I can think of a million things to say on this subject but I'd end up sounding like a raving feminist. Maybe that in itself says enough, you're a smart man and you don't need me to tell you. I'm really bad at feminism anyway, I like to have doors opened for me ;) I think historically, birth control has been our territory. You'd be amazed how many men assume that a woman is on the pill, like women get pregnant so it's up to them to prevent it too. Probably just goes a bit against the cultural grain, you lads getting involved in the right way ;)
JOKE !!!! FAYNIGHTS !!!! :)

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 01:14

Most feminists are bad at feminism as well, so keep up the good work. I love to open doors for women like you and the few times I take a woman out, I pull out the chair for her--and if this makes me a male chauvinist, sexist pig, I'm proud of it. Standard English dictates "Everyone has HIS book" and if some feminist with an acute penis complex doesn't like it, she can employ a different construction without trying to force a so-called politically correct change on the language--in this case, the plural is one way out.

Anyone who preaches equality of the sexes is as ignorant as the most rabid fundamentalist Christian.

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 01:31

I want equality, I want the differences as well though. I love my girls equally but differently because they are not the same. But please Mr Allen, don't stop pulling out chairs :)
One of your funnier posts, still smiling now!

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 01:44

Well please explain to me why men and women are unequal.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 02:08

for one thing, one responds differently to a policeman than to a policewoman.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 02:12

That's it? How would one respond differently to a 9mm fired by a woman officer than one fired by a man officer? Weak RobertAllen. Really weak.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 02:31

That's not what I'm saying. When dealing with an officer, most people respond differently to a policeman as opposed to a policewoman, the same thing in an office setting and most everything else--and there's nothing that can be done about it.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 02:36

But how does that make the policewoman unequal?

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 02:40

Theoretically she's supposed to be just a good as her male counterparts, but the reality is different, especially if an arrest is being made.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 02:45

Do you mean to say it is a matter of physical strength?

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 02:55

In some cases, it is. Compare male tennis players with their female counterparts. In co-ed matches, most male players can slaughter them for the most part because a man's strength lies in his shoulders while a woman's lies in her hips.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 02:22

I would respond the same to an officer regardless of sex. To me it is someone with the force of the law behind her office. I see no difference.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 02:33

I doubt that very much.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 02:43

You aren't in a position to doubt what I said. That's ridiculous.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 02:55

I certainly, for in all probability, we've been conditioned in the same way.

lakhotason
- 05/19/2012 at 03:06

Maybe we haven't been conditioned the same. I think we are more or less contemporaries. Wonder how and where we diverged?

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 03:27

I can't say anything about the age difference, but it seems that we come from quite similar cultures and therefore have been conditioned, however subliminally, in pretty much the same way.

Do you generally open the door for a woman or pull a chair out for her? Would you do the same for a man? Assuming you're heterosexual, would you be embarassed holding hands with a man in public, how about a woman? Does the same thing apply to kissing? You haven't yet answered my question about tennis players. Also, why hasn't co-educational football caught on or co-educational wrestling? Why are male porno stars treated and regarded differently from their female counterparts or to put it bluntly, why do the females general make more? Why is it that females having sex with minors is looked on differently than males having sex with them? And speaking of sex, why does the general attitude between homosexuality and lesbianism vary so greatly?

You just can't get around it, men and women are not equal and probably never will be and it says a lot for Dewflirt that she blatantly admits liking it.

KsDevil
- 05/19/2012 at 22:35

We are conditioned by society to respond differently to different genders. Some people accept the conditioning and some try to fight it. But since it has gone on for thousdands of years, it has a genetic component to it.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 22:40

I mentioned this in one of my later posts. I guess this genetic component is called a meme, a la Richard Dawkins.

Kateye70
- 05/21/2012 at 20:22

I'm always surprised at how many people think being a feminist equals being rude. I'll gladly open a door for any man if I get there first, and thank him if he does the same for me.

Courtesy is the oil of social interaction, regardless of gender.

Guest
- 05/21/2012 at 20:56

ALso, this idea of male jobs and female jobs around the house is bull, i'll gladly mow the lawn, split some wood, take the carbage out, change a faulty light switch or plug, paint a room, as i will let him do the dishes, laundry and cook a meal.
Opening my door of the car....don't need it, thank you...the handle is right next to me.
az

edit/edit- No, I don't think I did get it the first time... But you're still right, lol.

edit/edit/edit- No penalty here, either, I hope?

edit/edit/edit/edit- Bwahahahaha!

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 08:07

You probably have a different Faynights. Remember all those years ago playing tig in the playground and you needed a break, you'd cross your fingers and call the truce word? We also used to use pax and squabs. Don't know if it's true but I was told when little that Faynights was a curse to ward off the Templars, which is why you cross your fingers too, sign of the cross. Heard it the other way as well, that it is to use the protection offered by them and the cross is theirs. Check out wiki - truce words :)

Pysmythe
- 05/19/2012 at 17:39

In the definitions I saw last night, "feign knights" was given as an alternate spelling, with a reference to the Templars. "Faynights" is given as a variant originating from the London area, in reference to the game of tag, and meaning one who utters it can't be given a penalty, or be had.

Thanks for increasing my vocabulary, and for adding a little childish enchantment to what had the potential to be something more serious!

(I will also check out the truce words wiki.)

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 17:58

If I have to stay serious for too long I end up laughing at wrong things and getting in trouble, I could feel it welling up :)

AntiTheist666
- 05/19/2012 at 16:19

@Brennilthos64

Ha ha, I really did laugh out loud. Don’t cry too much, until a few days ago I thought you were female. Now that’s a great compliment ;-)

Kateye70
- 05/21/2012 at 20:16

Nicely put thoughts about the male side of the issue. Just bear in mind that not only does the woman bear the foetus in her body, she also has to consider the child's welfare once it is born.

It would be nice if all men were man enough to be fathers as well as dna-donors, but sadly, this is not the case. There are truly times when a child would be better off unborn than to have its particular dna-donor.

I had to make that decision myself, and realized that the potential father I was looking at could not be trusted to have the care of his own child. That was a cold wake-up, let me tell you.

God bless contraception.

Jayjay30
- 05/20/2012 at 01:41

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

dewflirt
- 05/20/2012 at 11:22

I was in the chemists yesterday getting nit combs, a girl of about 16 and her boyfriend bowled in already in the midst of an argument. They checked out the prices of pregnancy tests, the cheapest there was £3.91 (free if you go to family planning or the doctor )
In the end they decided it was too expensive, he needed the money for a packet of tobacco and whatever was left he wanted for a party that night. The argument spilled out onto the street, I bought the test, dropped it into her hand as I passed and walked off. Their nerves about the results were probably the real reason for the anger, typical teens getting bolshy when they don't know what else to do. Now I worry what will happen to them. Where were their parents, why couldn't they speak to them, how had she fallen in with a lad that could bully her out of something so important just so he could get a packet of fags ? If she has a baby, will he stick with her, or support his child if not ? What will become of the baby, will anyone be there to help? I'm not trying to change your mind or anyone else's on this. My point has only ever been that if you want to end abortion, then society as a whole will have to step up, offer more help, foster and adopt more kids, pay more taxes to pay their benefits, provide housing etc. Next time you're standing in line at a shop, count how many people stick their change in the charity box. I'm guessing that if old people are living longer, then a good proportion of them are also enjoying better health for longer, and a good set of grandparents can be exactly what a young family needs. Instead of giving people a hard time for making difficult decisions in difficult times, ask yourself if you are doing enough to help and try a little understanding and compassion rather than laying guilt trips on people. Sorry for the lecture, didn't plan on waffling on so long, it's just something I care very deeply about :)

AntiTheist666
- 05/20/2012 at 13:00

Saint Flirtious of Kindness.

What an Angel you are.

Good point, well put.

Achems_Razor
- 05/20/2012 at 14:52

Good going there flirt!

dewflirt
- 05/21/2012 at 01:26

Cheers Blue :)

Jayjay30
- 05/20/2012 at 15:52

Pro-abortion people who are arguing on science basis are equaling fetus to cancer tumor even though they know that the DNA of a fetus will instruct that bunch of cells to develop in to a human just as well the cancer cells DNA will instruct them to develop in to a tumor. I find it repulsive that such a comparison is made but I understand the convenience and the purpose for such an argument . Talk about knowledge miss-use, with arrogance that one is telling such misleading science to irrational bunch of people .
You Dewflirt on the other hand, are arguing the quality of life for the child once it's born but you seem also like the "pro-abortion scientist" to be ignoring or deliberately omitting part of the evidence that you're aware of . The evidence that life involves risks and opportunities which is what makes life beautiful . To predetermine a fetus life and terminate it based on assumptions that as a child it will have a hard life, I think is unjust to the fetus and convenient to the parent .
I don't think myself or anyone can impose gilt on another because it's about one's conscience and them being able to justify their action to it.
All in all I agree with you about charity and society having to take responsibility of it's decision should it decide to make abortion illegal.
I empathize and respect your passion and hope you can be the same with mine :-)

robertallen1
- 05/20/2012 at 17:48

I, for one, don't because if anti-abortionists such as you had their way, women who undergo abortions would be criminalized for making a choice on a personal matter which is really no one else's business. It says something for contemporary society that a therapeutic abortion is now easier to obtain than it ever was.

Michael Brown
- 05/24/2012 at 19:14

Ray Comfort convincingly argued that the murders of Jews and non Jews WAS our business.

robertallen1
- 05/24/2012 at 19:28

Nothing he argued was convincing, only contrived.

Abortion is an issue personal to the woman involved and none of anyone else's business, yours included.

Michael Brown
- 05/24/2012 at 19:07

Quite a biblical comment here, regardless of your like or dislike of the book. A well-thought, perfectly valid and very insightful statement.

We are both theological/religious polar opposites, even still I have to commend you for your compassion, care and concern for the girl.

Thanks.

Guest
- 05/22/2012 at 16:40

I looked at your line of i ssss and it reminded me of a pack of children lined up and the millions that could be behind it, if seen from above.

The only person we can be the master of is ourself, there has been a zillions ways to be the seed of that. Some seeds don't get a chance, they never sprout, others do but throw that opportunity away for no reason other then not being conscient of that feasibility.
Anyone's situation can fulfill that role, anyone's situation can be reversed and in fact often times the hardest situation leads to the strongest outcome, perhaps not financially but humanly. Grace, wisdom, philanthropy can happen to any men/women/child.
I much rather compare a child to a seed then to a lump of tumor because all seeds hold a great potential but only one that sprouts can push through the dirt it was born in.
az

Jayjay30
- 05/22/2012 at 21:30

I'll exaggerate the truth in explaining the level of my understanding of life in comparison to your comprehension and wisdom of it, by saying "this is a meeting of minds" ....lol
I like your view on my i ssss, that's a deep thinker's perspective. ;-)

Jayjay30
- 05/20/2012 at 01:48

Maybe children of the current and future Old dependent and dying parents should just kill their parents on the basis that, They did not ask to be born and certainly never asked to care for their parents in their old age. If no care home or no one is willing to adopt the lump of old dying cells then as it will be the child's responsibility to make a decision on their parent's LIFE (care); I think the children should also have the right to kill their Old parents and save them form what could be a bad quality of life.

Karl van Oldenborgh
- 05/18/2012 at 07:43

If I take a drug, then rape a woman, then become lucid, I would not want my rape victim to give birth to our child. And if she does chose to keep it, then that's her choice. I'm sure plenty of women are victims of rape from their husband/spouse within a relationship.

It should be the mother's right to keep or abort.

Should a government ever be allowed to tell a mother to abort or give birth?
Should a government ever be allowed to tell me not to end my life?

I'm sorry to hear people can be so rash as to use their children as ammunition.

I respect your reservations as to a man's lack of autonomy, but how can one balance it out with a woman's right to choice? If I were a woman, the thought of someone imposing their will on my biology would seem an infuriatingly unjust circumstance to experience.

I'm sorry my lord but I thought I heard you mention Moliere earlier, but I didn't I didn't mean it in a misanthropic way.

Pysmythe
- 05/18/2012 at 04:56

How it might be balanced out, I have no idea. It doesn't appear it can be, because repealing Roe vs. Wade (in the U.S.) certainly wouldn't achieve any such thing. It looks like men who disagree with an abortion are just going to have to keep biting the bullet on this one... I suppose I mostly would just have a lot of sympathy for a man in a circumstance like I described earlier, but, like Dewflirt suggests, a circumstance like that is probably a very, very rare thing, anyway. So, maybe I'm just "playing lawyer" a little bit, and throwing out a hypothetical. But if a man would be imposing his will on a woman's biology by making her carry a child to term, she might also be imposing her's on his by NOT doing so, it seems to me. He does, after all, have something at stake here, having very much to do with his own biology. Because of her biology being what it is, she may be justly allowed the ultimate decision, as I believe is as it should be, but that she would IN FACT be doing so ought to be acknowledged a little more readily than it sometimes is, however much that might muddy up the waters.

So...test-tube baby production, like we have in the first chapter of Brave New World?
No, I don't think so...
This whole subject just really makes my head and my heart ache, to tell you the truth.

Werner Breedt
- 05/19/2012 at 00:05

I cannot agree more with your summation. It's a sad difficult issue.

On a side note, I have read on more than one occasion that contraception should be considered one of humanity's greatest inventions, since the current size of the world's population, as well as the risk of viral infections would serve to undermine any stability for a modern civilization.

Pysmythe
- 05/19/2012 at 01:07

Yep, playing dice with the Plague, and fast running out of room and natural resources...

Contraception could be, in essence, a moot invention in 100 years, or less.

Renevonn
- 05/18/2012 at 01:48

I've heard from Alan Watts that a "fool who persists in his folly will become wise."

Now I'd like to think that is true but in Mr. Comfort's case, I'll make an exception :/

This so called documentary is ridiculously offensive and lacks any kind of intellect and respect for what happened during the holocaust. I don't think you should be able to air this kind of shit, especially not for your own issues with abortion.

This so called documentary is ridiculously offensive and lacks any kind of intellect and respect for what happened during the holocaust. I don't think you should be able to air this kind of ****, especially not for your own issues with abortion.

This movie turned me around 180 degrees within the alleged number of seconds! I am simply thrilled with the result, not only because my neck feels so much more supple, but also because I missed the remaining 33 minutes of the film.

I feel it is important for everyone to have the right to express themselves, so long as those expressions do not incite hatred. That being said, it was really a shock to see a worldview so abhorrent. I feel evangelical calls such as this, inciting guilt and renouncing a woman's right to her body, only serve to sustain suffering and abuse of women and children.

I live in South Africa. We are the Hiv/AIDS capital of the world, as well as having the highest rape statistics. 1 in 3 women are said to be raped each year. If Mr Comfort could visit the clinics these ladies attend, I would certainly watch the sequel to this man's masterpiece.

Idealism is one thing, reality is another... If you get an abortion, do it before you truly think it as a "baby" and avoid your own guilt and the guilt trip others may persuade you to have.
Back in the 80's I read a statistic that half of all women (in the USA) have an abortion some time in their lives. I was astounded, but that's just recorded statistics - the truth may be higher for the women who travelled overseas and got one there. Japanese have the highest %age of abortions, and while I'm sure many parents agonize over the decision, both in the US and anywhere else, they can always raise and love the child they can be responsible for, and love it that much more.

Wow, hats of to ray, he guilted the minds of impressionable kids who don't even know who hitler is into changing there minds, I noticed he didn't change the minds of any of the elder people he interviewed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but how many of the elder people that banana-brain interviewed stated that they still believed in individual choice? If I remember correctly, none of them was even asked this question, only the young, ignorant ones.

oompaul
- 05/17/2012 at 18:14

Points to ponder

Holocaust and abortion. Eli Wiesel, with reference to killings, said: "Some events do take place but are not true; others are, although they never occurred." Now, which is which?

I'm not sure why anyone has a problem with this guy comparing one kind of killing to another. I understand that people's opinions vary as to when life begins, personally I believe its at conception, but why does that seem to cause so much anger? I also believe that the whopper is infinitely better than the big mac, but I don't think anyone will yell at me about that. I can understand those who believe like I do getting emotional about abortion, but if you don't believe an unborn baby is alive why would it bother you that my opinion differs from yours any more than my opinion of a hamburger? I also don't see this as manipulation. The guy's just trying to get people to see the comparison of 6 million dead Jews and 50 million dead babies (or 50 million terminations of potential life, if you prefer). Even if a baby in the womb is only potential life, how is that ok? That being said, I've known numerous women who have had abortions and I don't judge them at all. I don't agree with their actions but 1) I wasn't there, I didn't see what they were going through, I don't know the situation they were in, and I can honestly say as an imperfect human being I don't know what I would do in their place; and 2) it's not my place to judge anyone.

This is how I approach this subject with people I know (and I think it's a pretty good system):

To the pro-choicers, I disagree with your belief but I won't beleaguer you with hate or judgement. In fact, I probably won't even bring it up if you don't.

To the pro-lifers, I agree with your belief but back off. No fallible human being has the authority to judge someone else based on their beliefs. Be kind to them; even Jesus hung out with hookers and thieves and I seriously doubt he was banging them over the head with his Torah.

I'll tell you what the problem is. Banana-brain attempts to equate abortion with Naziism which is like the proverbial comparison of apples to oranges--they are both fruit, but the similarity ends there. To make matters worse, as shown in this "documentary," there are those stu*id, unthinking and uneducated enough to buy into this twaddle.

Did you ever ask yourself how many people banana-brain interviewed before he chose these five?

I do judge, not those women who've decided to undergo abortions, but those who promote the idea that they shouldn't have any choice in the first place.

magarac
- 05/17/2012 at 20:01

Just imagine religion without those stu*id, unthinking and uneducated people.
Just an adorable little group of people telling each other storys from the good old days when women were made from ribs.

robertallen1
- 05/17/2012 at 20:29

Like a parent telling her children a fairy tale and making sure that they realize that it is such.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 03:22

It's a woman's choice NOT to get pregnant. If she should be raped into getting pregnant, you don't kill the child for the rapist's crime. That's pretty clear-cut, unless you're a relativistic m*ron, who can't see that it's a separate life that depends on the mother, exactly like a newborn baby does.

AntiTheist666
- 05/17/2012 at 16:00

Disgusting, despicable, deceitful nonsense.

I’m appalled. Not just at Ray Comfort, who has already proved himself to be an imbecile but at those people he interviewed. Where were those interviews taken? Were all the intelligent people on holiday when that film was made? Or perhaps he chose not to show them. The conversion of a few light heads to religious pro-life propaganda means nothing. In them we have one Nazi thug and several who didn’t know who Hitler was!

The Holocaust was a horrendous and shameful event in human history, it needs to be learnt from and the memories of those that suffered need to be respected. It does not need any association with a quackpot snake oil salesman.

I’m surprised that they didn’t declaim against suicide while they were at it, a usual stance of the religious. Perhaps that’s BananaMan’s next project? Abortion is a sensitive issue that needs much careful consideration and needs to be freely available as a matter of choice. Otherwise it only ends up in backstreet butchers as it has done in the past. As a Father I would say that the ultimate decision lies with the Mother, it’s her body.

Disgusting, despicable, deceitful nonsense. Yup, that's how I feel, reading your kind of attitude. Buck for a woman to shirk her responsibility, and kill an innocent child. Problem solved. If you're so concerned about a woman's right to choose to abort, maybe it should start with you, keeping it in your pants, or putting a Zip-Lock Baggie over it. Go ahead....have your cake, and kill it, too.

magarac
- 05/17/2012 at 15:58

Didn´t watch this since it seems to be a huge waste of time.
But could´t help but wonder if the comparissing of Hitler and abotions isn´t quite a bit insulting to the about 60 million victims of his doing.

Wow, mags.....you didn't watch the video, and yet you can relate to 60 million murder victims, as having been insulted at the implication of aligning their deaths with aborted babies. I'm constantly amazed at the grace of God, as to why He lets His own creations continue to breathe, to allow their hearts to keep pumping, and for that same creation to speak so horribly of life, made in His image.

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 05:38

Not only do you feel yourself qualified to dictate to women, but believe you have a pipeline to God. What conceit!

magarac
- 05/18/2012 at 09:03

I was born way after hitler died so personnaly i have no experience of that time. I do however have relatives and know other people who very much suffered because of him. And then i even have been part of an abortion. And so you see i can campare my personal feelings regarding abortion to what i heard from the second world war.

That whole abortion thing is by no means something i would ever take lightly even thou i am just a guy. But slaugtering millions of people with theyre lifes, dreams and people who care about them is and will always be worse.

And since you religious people seem to love human life that much, how is it possible to have started countless wars in the name of jesus and the other guys?

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 10:18

Gaining land, possessions, and people's souls, has always been the aim of the Vatican. They have the motive and resources to commit murder, and seek world domination, in the name of Jesus. They are corrupted and a corrupting influence. Don't paint all Christians with the same brush. Religion is most certainly responsible for many, if not ALL wars, and therefore I do not label myself as "religious." I abhor the term.

Laura Schmitt
- 05/17/2012 at 14:56

making a biased connection between Holocaust and aborption = manipulation! That is just unfair to manipulate people's opinion based on emotional reactions! How many people did the author interview to get around 5 who change their minds?
If you want to debate, set the pros and the cons and then explain your opinion but convincing on emotions and showing one way thinking; first this is how dictatorships works, and second, this is of a very low level because you take away the freedom of the person you talk to.

Your approach is logical, well-reasoned and educated which means that it goes above the heads of Ray Comfort and Crispy777.

P.S. I like the way you question Mr. Comfort's concept of random selection in the last two lines of your first paragraph.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 04:10

Manipulating someone into thinking properly about an issue, is the best kind of manipulation. If someone had been duped, or cheated, or fooled, you would expect that at some point, that person would learn the truth, and de-program themselves. Most of those living in this world were not planned.....you might even call them "a mistake," but most are glad they're here. Erring (if it could ever be called that) on the side of life, is NEVER WRONG. Mark it down.

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 06:01

"Most of those living in this world were not planned . . . " How do you know this?

"Thinking properly?" Assertions don't even come close to thought.

Erring on the side of logic, reason and knowledge is never wrong, only impossible. Mark it down.

David
- 05/17/2012 at 13:19

I love the description they gave us with this video! LOL Hilarious! Death is a part of life and NOTHING can live without killing something! ...Many somethings! If you want to tell a raped woman that she has to keep the unworthy seed of a rapist... Then I tell you about all the cells you destroy in every little tiny action you take! They are alive! Mind your business you lowlife losers! You don't know jack about life and you sure as hell shouldn't be telling people how to live it! This is directed towards all the stupid comments I read here. You idiots make me laugh. Don't even know why I waste my time trying to talk to people who only hear what they want to hear.

good point about the abortion and the holocaust. But not about heaven, hell, repention, and jesus bailing us out.
What jesus did on the cross? Nothing. He wasnt there at all. Jesus = Sun (literally). The sun "ressurrects" on the southern cross constellation after staying still on the horizon for 3 days (like jesus was dead for 3 days). the ressurrection is celebrated on the Easter (spring equinox) because the days grow longer then the nights from then on.
When you look at is more scientifically you might realize that the UFO phenomenon has more evidence tahn existance of jesus.

I don't think that anybody is going to hell or heaven. Our energy leaves the body and evolves in higher beings.

P.S.: and the german guy with blured face who hates jews...he has some point. Hitlers way was killing jews, gypsies,..., but the way of capitalist jews is to financialy enslave the world. They already own America, their corporations, media, army. And they also kill innocent people arround the world but with the different excuse than Hitler (democracy, feedome, bla bla bla bla blaaaaaaa)

Wow, people arguing about abortion and religion- who'd guess. I can't comment on th doc. I don't watch anything with Ray Comfort in it, its the bannanna thing- for some reason I can't get it out of my mind when I see him or the boy wonder (Kirk). You would think by now that some of the more sophisticated creationists (is that a oxymoron?) would tell these clowns to sit down and be very quite and still. They do more harm than good for their cause in my opinion, which is good from my point of view but still.

Point # 1; Only women should have a voice on the subject for obvious reasons.
Point # 2; Comfort's analogy makes as much sense as corporations are people and trying the executives of Bain Capital for murder sense they liquidated corporations.
Point # 3; This film is in the wrong venue. Using shock video, disinformation, twisted argumentative non-objective rhetoric makes this film right wing propaganda, not a documentary.

Point#4: The only people he interviews are those who agree with him, not those who challenge him.

Pysmythe
- 05/17/2012 at 08:30

You're just a little too quick with point one, to my mind. Take the case of a long-term, committed couple (married or otherwise) who have decided together to have a child. They (yes, they) become pregnant, and the woman thereafter changes her mind and decides on an abortion, against her partner's wishes. Do you really believe it is completely fair to ask the man in such a case to simply sit back and shut his yapper while she alone decides the fate of what would be his offspring, too? It is not just her genetic material, it is his, too. It was not just her body, it was also his. She did not become pregnant through an act of God, after all!

I agree with abortion, that it should be legal and a choice, and I would very much hate to see it outlawed. But in a case such as this one, I very much wonder if there shouldn't be some means of legal recourse, or compensation ( not including simply giving him his sperm back...), for the man. Women do not raise children by themselves (or, if they do, there are men who do, as well), nor do they become pregnant by themselves, and I believe a man, in a case such as this one, should not be looked upon as a mere sperm-donor, with no say whatsoever in the fate of his future child.

Irishkev
- 05/17/2012 at 10:41

Nicely put my friend . I'm raising my son by myself and I'm male . I'd hate it if he wasn't around .

wald0
- 05/17/2012 at 11:08

I don't know- I don't have children. I can't say whether it would upset me or not. I assume it would, from what I hear the parent child bond and all is very strong and instinctual. However, i have also herd and, to some extent, witnessed the fact that fathers don't seem to bond with their children until after they are born while the mother forms strong bonds while carrying. Does this mean she has the right to terminate without his consent, lets think about that. If she doesn't want the child the father is effectively asking her to carry this baby inside of her for nine months and then go through the ordeal of child birth all for him. Now if he doesn't want the child all he needs do is walk away, that simple. To me it seems this difference counts for something but, thats an instinctual reaction. I am not sure what logic or philosophical underpinning I am basing that reaction on. I suppose I am trying to place myself in her shoes, to understand what it would feel like to be expected to go through pregnancy and child birth- to set aside your job and plans- to form a lasting biological bond with someone you may no longer want to be with- all for a child you don't want. It just seems like the situation demands so much more of her than it does the man. In a way that seems as if it should give her more say than him. That said, like I said before I have no children so maybe I shouldn't even have an opinion on this subject. It would seem an uninformed position to start from, thats for sure.

Pysmythe
- 05/18/2012 at 01:00

I'm sure I'm coming at this completely emotionally and don't really have a good logical leg to stand on... It's an incredibly difficult thing for a lot of men to accept, that a decision to terminate the life of their offspring should remain out of their hands, especially in a case where both agreed they wanted to do this. Also, to take a different case, if a man does want the pregnancy terminated, perhaps for very good reasons (he's too young, has little prospects for a good job, etc.), he has no power here, either, and if he decides to walk away, he can still be held financially responsible for the child. Young women have even been known to deliberately trap young men with this technique on occasion, so that they can sit back, jobless, and keep living with their parents, but with the child they wanted, while he pays for it, and then make him run hoops through the legal system just to insure he gets visitation rights, which they would otherwise deny... (I know about this one because it happened to my own stepson, even though his mother and I had more than one talk with him about birth-control, and now he's paying a heavy price for his carelessness...)

As far as bonding with the child before birth, I can only speak for myself, but I certainly feel that I did. I got nauseated with my wife when she did (not always, but a couple of times, and I never actually puked), and when she finally went into contractions I very definitely felt some abdominal discomfort of my own, but this may have been due more to ensuing panic than anything else. I also seem to remember that for the entire pregnancy, and for a long while afterwards, my sex-drive was WAY down, as if my testosterone levels were on the floor. And when the baby finally began to move around in her, I'd play music for her (the baby) to listen to, with the headphones on my wife's stomach, or I would rub her stomach when the baby was stretching and get the impression the child knew I was there. But I was 30 before I ever had my first child, and this may have had something to do with how receptive I was to the whole experience, who knows?

Just wanted to say, too, that if you ever do have a child someday, you should witness the birth itself. Hands down, the most intense experience you would ever have in your life! The euphoria, the PURE JOY, the tears, it is truly indescribable, and, if you want it, I hope you get to have it someday. If you weren't bonded with the child by that point, you certainly would be afterwards!

GodmanEnki
- 05/17/2012 at 06:56

The "Buddha said, when asked by his followers, "Master WHO are you?" He never claimed divinity like the so-called 'Son of Man' did; he SAID, "I AM a man who is awake." Now THAT, I understand. THAT, is my only "claim."

Any "Christians" KNOW WHO "Enki" was? OR his brother Enlil? Because, of course, HE or, the coming "Pole-Shift" won't change many Christian's minds, although it is "qualified-by-scientists" as a coming-REALITY! I "pray" THEY ARE incorrect. HOWEVER, THAT DON'T MAKE IT SO........BTW D.M. Murdoc sells a t-shirt< (much like Christians SELL "Christianity 10% at a time!) sells t-shirts that say, "God, Please protect me from your followers." I UNDERSTAND exactly-what-she-means!

So many so-called apologists will say, "I know the truth" because they have come to an "understanding" of the Bible. "Tom Sawyer said, whether right OR wrong, "Faith....is 'believing' in something you KNOW aint so." What I am saying is, PROVE it to me, WITHOUT the "use" of the "one book" you USE for so-called "infalible-proof!" "INFALLIBLE?" You believe "*" this, and the Mormons (aka "CHRISTIAN - Mormons") believe differently. How does one come to a "conclusion" like that? It "appears to be" to be "ILLOGICAL." Now my JW friend, that I study-the-Bible with, has "answered-to-my-satisfaction" so far every question I have posed. Yet THIS "Christian" believes "otherwise." This JW "man" IS the "son of man" just as was this man called "Jesus of Nazareth" EXISTED 450 + YEARS BEFORE the so-called "town of Nazareth" came-into-BEING! Please explain that, so an old man can get some sleep at night! It is "KNOWN FACTS LIKE THESE, that cause me great stress ! When a Pastor from The "Bible belt" saw my D.M. Murdoc "t-shirt" he asked me, "What do YOU 'believe." I replied, to be 100% honest, after 34+ YEARS of CONTINUAL RESEARCH, "I do not KNOW." "Very interesting" he replied. I am sorry, but after READING "that book," it has supplied me with MORE questions then "answers." Perhaps this yo-yo here, that takes YOUR HARD-EARNED money at 10% and laughs all-the-way-to-the-bank! I have ISSUES with that! etc, etc, etc......Any FOOL with $30 CAN-BE "ordained ministers!" That much, I DO know! Being "ordained" MEANS absolutely NOTHING! It most certainly does NOT "prove" any DIVINITY whatsoever...............So, put ion your 'fancy-robes' and ACT-OUT your own foolish UNKNOWING.....Asta luego you chump!

Wow, Enki.....may I call you Inky? ....as in Inky Blot? You're like a black stain of confusion, that can "honestly" argue circles around yourself. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. I'm glad to hear that you don't know what to believe, and yet you believe the KNOWN FACT that there was no such town called "Nazareth," until 450+ years AFTER Jesus appeared on the scene. You "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." The bible is my sole authority. I either have to believe every word of it, or believe none of it. You, as a "clear-minded" middle-of-the-roader, will get bashed from both directions. Faith looks foolish to the unregenerate soul, so all you're truly capable of is mocking what you can't possibly understand. Stop nit-picking, and gaze at the big picture: There IS a Holy God, and you, as one of us poor, helpless sinners, will stand before Him, some day, to be judged. All of your so-called "FACTS" won't serve you one whit, in that moment.

robertallen1
- 05/17/2012 at 14:47

In other words, you believe in something which by definition neither you nor anyone else can know anything about and whoever regards this as a foolish crotchet is simply an uncomprehending unregenerate soul. "Faith looks foolish to the unregenerate soul" you say, however wrongly. No, faith looks foolish to any independently thinking intelligent human being which obviously excludes you.

"There IS a Holy God, and you, as one of us poor, hapless sinners, wills tand before Him, some day to be judged." How do you know this--oh, I forgot 'The Bible is my sole authority." That pretty much sums up the extent of your knowledge and intelligence.

What's a matter, Sea-bass? Too compelling for you? He interviewed a decent cross-section of society, and got a lot of people to think twice, with many changing their minds, completely,right before our very eyes! Scripted? Hired actors? Clever editing? I'll give you enough credit for knowing better, because you didn't make that charge. He made valid points, was near-flawless in his logic, and got many positive results. The brevity of your "critical review," with CAPS all over, is critical, all right.....in that it needs resuscitating. You speak with all of the conviction and intellect of a 10-year-old redneck racist. You hardly convinced me, with your deep, cogent insights. Perhaps, if you had written more, you would've proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you were a brainless boob. Come on.......give me more evidence.......speak.

And speaking of mor*onic, what is "near flawless logic" or do you have any idea.

Even if you had written less, you would still have come off as the cretin you are.

mjnkhr
- 05/17/2012 at 04:15

God is a sinner himself for "offering" his son Jezus, even worse: you could consider it as post-natal abortion. The arguments in this "documentary" rarely make sense, not to say they're full of crap. This should not be considered a documentary but just plain propaganda. What about the last part about going to hell for just silly lies everyone makes etc... Seriously? Religion hast lost its essence.

good point about god offering his son on the alter. it gets even more confusing if u consider god and jesus are one of a three-some. this is far more perverse than any free thinking, free fornicating liberal would ever condone.

robertallen1
- 05/17/2012 at 05:01

Speaking of the trinity, you might be interested in knowing that this concept did not come about until approximately 300 years after "Jesus'" death. Nowhere does it appear as such in the New Testament although various passages hint at it.

Chrispy777
- 05/17/2012 at 12:15

MyJunkHour, lay off the PCP and whatever else you're shooting up, sniffing, popping, drinking, or smoking. If you had actually paid attention to this very worthy documentary, you would've noticed that God is holy, and we're not. He mentioned, not just "silly lies," but fornication, adultery, murder, stealing, idolatry, and blaspheming. The bible says that if you break any ONE commandment, it's as though you broke them all. The penalty for sin is death. Christ died in our place, out of love for his fallen creation. It makes perfect sense that since "God IS love," then He should do whatever is necessary to bring us back into fellowship with Him. The substitutionary atonement of Christ's death on the cross is the perfect answer, stemming from Perfect Love. Believe it....or be wrong.

robertallen1
- 05/17/2012 at 14:55

You're living proof of the justification for the hatred directed against religees.

Achems_Razor
- 05/17/2012 at 15:41

@Chrispy777:

Am trying to figure out if you are a troll, someone who likes to attack others with ad hominem, or just one of the "TDF religee NUTTERS"

Quit running everyone down with your posts on this doc.

AntiTheist666
- 05/17/2012 at 17:05

@Achems

Hello Mighty One

I just wanted you to know that I’m delighted to see you still doing such a fine job here. You and several other regular commentators here make this site a joy to visit. I’m not just talking about your wonderful way of exposing religious twaddle. What really impresses me is how you take the time, even if it means repeating yourself, to explain to others your views on cosmological and quantum affairs. I’m sure many are grateful for your explanations of often difficult concepts. Keep up the good work. Best regards.

The Crucified One

Achems_Razor
- 05/17/2012 at 18:19

@AntiTheist666:

Thank you for your kind words, much appreciated!

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 03:44

I'll quit running everyone down, Hell-Razor, when your type comes to their senses, and stops speaking madness and hatred towards those innocents, who haven't the power to defend themselves. I step up and speak for the speechless, and show power for the powerless. All you do is make a baby, and flippantly say to the woman, "Go ahead....kill it. See if I care. Your body." Troll, indeed.

Achems_Razor
- 05/18/2012 at 04:00

My type?? and what type is that pray tell? You sound like a loony.

Funny religee's!

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 05:46

Is there some hidden meaning in "prey tell?"

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 06:01

"Rose, you don't miss a thing!" Thomas Andrews from "Titanic"

Achems_Razor
- 05/18/2012 at 15:03

@robertallen1:

("pray tell")...Not hidden meaning, an inflection of speech. (idiomatic usually sarcastic) Except I made an error and said prey instead of pray.

Expressing incredulity,...(please explain your doubtful position) used ironically to emphasize the unacceptability of something when highlighting a logical fallacy.

dewflirt
- 05/18/2012 at 15:20

Should be pray, not prey as in thing being hunted :)

Achems_Razor
- 05/18/2012 at 15:38

You are right! I stand corrected, my first mistake of the year! As everyone probably knows by my poor grammar, English is not my first language.

dewflirt
- 05/18/2012 at 15:46

Not bad Blue, and only one letter wrong, you're still 99.9% right :)

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 15:53

I didn't know that. What is your first language?

Achems_Razor
- 05/18/2012 at 16:00

You mean you have forgot? have already told you before. lol

But we cannot go off topic, sorry.

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 16:03

I apologize for the oversignt. I believe you once did. Is it German? Now don't be cagey, am I right?

Guest
- 05/18/2012 at 16:14

Borcht, perogies, cabbage rolls....i see the world through food these days!
az

Guest
- 05/18/2012 at 15:57

Although many prey god while they pray.
az

dewflirt
- 05/18/2012 at 17:41

That must be why he's so shy, if we ignore him he might come and dribble on us, likes cows do ;)

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 15:53

This makes sense. "Prey tell" doesn't.

AntiTheist666
- 05/17/2012 at 16:03

@Chrispy777

What’s your problem dude? Why the attitude and insults? Is this an intelligent way of trying to get your point across? I think not. Try presenting your argument in a calm rational manner and you might get somewhere. However the onus is on you to provide proof of the existence of your Dog. If you are that confident in your diseased dogma perhaps you could answer the questions I left at another doc on this site called “Riddles of The Bibble”. I await your answers, though not with bated breath.

The Crucified One

Unkeep the faith

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 03:14

Your opening question , dude, is the very thing that I've been asking. Most of your kind have been insulting, with attitude, and dismissive of Ray Comfort. The man is trying to support the right of every child to live, and is for all women, everywhere, to have the right of choice NOT to get pregnant, in the first place. Once pregnant, the mother, at least, has the obligation to see that the child is nourished and helped to full-term maturity and health. Anything less is murder and selfishness. Continuing down the path of your choice, this society will one day justify the killing of a child outside of the womb, because it came from the woman, and she should have a right to kill her creation, if she so desires. Or perhaps, we will one day euthanize sick and genetically inferior folk, of all ages, just like Hitler. Nobody wants down-syndrome, or deformed people walking down the street. People will get too darn uncomfortable, and that's just not fair.

By the way, it's nice to see a young, upstanding young man like you, believing the bible, as evidenced by your use of the "666" in your moniker. I am quite certain that you're on the wrong side, however. You need to turn 180 degrees......seriously, dude.

By the

AntiTheist666
- 05/18/2012 at 04:25

@Chrispy777

Dear Toast

How kind of you to suggest that I am young (twice) and upstanding. Perhaps you think you’re 111 years older than me? I’ll say this for you, misguided as you are, you have passion. I’ll also add that that you don’t seem stupid either, perhaps there is hope for you yet?

Supporting that cretin Comfort is beneath you, rise above that dross, find another outlet for that passion of yours, smell the coffee, join the human race, but above all drop god, you're much more than him.

The Crucified One

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 06:04

Hitler, Stalin and Attila the Hun had passion. And please don't forget about the Catholic Church--how much more passionate can you get than the Inquisition and the witch burnings?

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 06:29

I know you're sincere, Alien....just sincerely wrong. It's been nice dueling with you, sir. You know where I stand. As John Lennon never sang, "Give life a chance."

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 06:38

It's been disgusting dueling with a sanctimonious know-nothing like you.

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 05:35

"Once pregnant, the mother, at least, has the obligation to see that the child is nourished and helped to full-term maturity and health." Suppose the fetus is a product of rape? Suppose the life of the mother is at stake? Suppose for reasons of her own the woman does not want to bring a child into the world? And above all, who, the hell do you think you are, dictating what women are obligated to do.

You and banana-brain deserve to be insulted, ridiculed and dismissed for you are lower than despiccable.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 05:52

Rape fetus? Kill the rapist. Mother's life at stake? New life should trump old life, especially since any normal mother would gladly give her life, in order to save her child's. Suppose for reasons of her own, blah, blah, blah......don't make the child, then you won't have to kill the child. Act responsible, Alien.....or is that foreign to your sensibilities? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of murder. If someone sticks a knife in you, unprovoked, who the hell do you think you are, dictating what an attempted murderer feels obligated to do? Same thing, fruit cup.

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 06:34

Kill the rapist is not the point. Why should the victim of a rape be forced to undergo the ordeal of childbirth against her will? Just because you say so? As a matter of fact, it is foreign to my sensibilities to force a woman to undergo childbirth against her will and bring an unwanted whelp into this world in any circumstance.

By further dictating that in life-threatening childbirths, the life of the fetus must supersede that of the mother, you exhibit the sensibilities of a troglodyte--and don't try to snow me with specious comparisons a la banana-brain.

It says something for our times that disgusting cretins such as yourself and banana-brain have no control over matters of individual choice and are not likely to.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 06:50

It's interesting....you never address the issue of extinguishing life. We'll never see eye to eye, Alien, because I have the high ground. I look down on pompous, insensitive, clods like you, who are obviously too smart for their own good. Enjoy your righteous indignation, until you take your last breath........and then.....

over the edge
- 05/18/2012 at 07:04

@Chrispy777
when you are done talking all around the subject, could you please concentrate on the core issue of when life begins. the bible says in genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. the laws mostly state life begins weeks to months after conception. science tends to agree with the laws. so where do you get your info from? please show me actual proof to back up your claims? also don't state that we should err on the side of caution on this point. that reasoning will lead to proposing to arrest 14 year old boys who take long showers of mass murder

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 07:09

First of all, you need to read up on the biology of fetuses, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, not that you will, for you'd rather wallow in your ignorance. And yes, there are instances when the extinguishing of life is justified.

Women are going to have abortions whether you, banana-brain or anyone else looks down upon them or not and this redounds to their credit. You are obviously too dim-witted for your own good and anyone else's.

AntiTheist666
- 05/19/2012 at 01:56

@Chrispy777

Dear Toast

Do you remember this? “have at it. YAWOHL!”
Did you really mean it? Not only have you ignored my challenge but you have failed to respond to my last reply to you. Perhaps you only issue EMPTY challenges

Do you remember this?

“Cain killed Abel because Abel's "religion" was approved of God, and Cain's was not. That made Cain very angry, and the first murder took place”

Are you sure about that? I think you’re mistaken. Cain and Abel worshipped the same god, their religion was the same. Cain killed Abel because God showed a great sign of pleasure for Abel’s sacrifice and nothing for Cain’s. He killed him out of jealousy. Don’t take my word it. There is a whole episode dedicated to Cain and Abel on a doc here at TDF called “Riddles of the Bible”

Who is right here? It couldn’t possibly be the Anti-theist over the christian could it?

The Crucified One

Chrispy777
- 05/19/2012 at 09:48

Since you, as an AntiTheist, do not know the bible better than the most ignorant Christian (and depends on cable TV for his indoctrination), then this one is a slam dunk. Abel offered a blood sacrifice, as God had commanded, and Cain attempted to offer his own fruits and/or vegetables. Cain did wrong, and he knew it. Was he jealous of Abel, having been accepted of God? Absolutely. Haven't you and Robert Allen ever wondered why you argue so vociferously against a God-fearing, life-respecting Christian, such as myself?

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 15:24

I'll give you an answer to your last question. Because of all the ignorance which you not only stand for but promote.

M A
- 05/17/2012 at 04:09

These people who '180' are pretty shell shocked, what with all the what would you do in Hitler's regime questions... Attacking impressionable people doesn't count, sir. There is a point where a fetus is just a cluster of cells, and I don't believe that women should be slaves to their reproductive organs. Leave the Holocaust, Jesus and religion out of it!

"Attacking impressionable people?" Permit me to utilize your initials....My Ass! People, by and large, do not think about the moral, societal, and scientific implications of shredding up a human life and snuffing out the great potential for another Einstein or Robert Frost or Oprah to enter the world, and benefit it....a human life that could've been YOU, My Ass. No....you get the right to live and breathe. If you HAD a heart, you would give it to the unborn murdered, who never got their chance to see a sunrise, merely because some of our inhumane humans deem them to be an inconvenience, or they have fantastic predictive powers to foresee a bleak future for the fetus, and so decide to rip it apart, limb by limb, as though they're dismantling a Lego figure. Put yourself in their womb, and imagine the horror, if you could perceive of what was happening to you...but no....you can't see God in the creation all around you, and you can't see a babe in the womb, so you reason it to be an "IT," with no sense of pain, or self-preservation, or will, or future, because it's a lifeless blob. Well....I think you're a heartless blob.

robertallen1
- 05/17/2012 at 14:58

Who, the hell, do you think you are to be telling others what to do? Again, you justify the hatred directed against religees like yourself.

P.S. How dare you place that ignorant pickaninny in the same league with Einstein.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 04:05

That "ignorant pickaninny" respects and defends life, and is a bigger, smarter, and more worthy member of this society than you'll ever be. I'm not telling people what to do...I'm telling them what NOT TO DO. YOU are telling them what to do. You say "KILL!" I say "KEEP ALIVE." I know you're wrong. One day, you too will turn 180 degrees. Trust me. I'm right. :)

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 05:55

By telling people what not do to, you are dictating to them and this makes of you a meddling, despiccable piece of sanctimonious refuse.

"One day, you too will turn 180 degrees." Do you have a crystal ball as well as a pipeline to god?

"Trust me. I'm right." I wouldn't trust you with my garbage.

P.S. She's still no more than just an ignorant pickaninny, only with a following of mo*ons like you.

M A
- 04/21/2013 at 23:07

Statistically, it's highly unlikely the child would be 'another Einstein' as you put it. Lets focus on giving opportunity to the wanted children, making sure the children who ARE born get the very best of our society, no? Nope, people are too obsessed with telling women what to do with their bodies, not offer any social perks like childcare or gender equality, such as equal wages to make sure a woman isn't twice as likely to end up below the poverty line than a male is.

Also, PS, the pain you describe... irrelevant, fetuses don't have the cognitive ability to process the horror you describe. :) So it is impossible to place myself in that womb.

Pete Moss
- 04/24/2013 at 10:24

How come the woman AND the man don't have to take responsibility for making a baby? One hundred years ago, it would've been unthinkable to mash up, rip apart, and wrench out a growing child, from the mother's womb, but now it's business as usual. Don't tug at people's heartstrings, to gain sympathy for a meaningless cluster of cells, that can't feel pain, anyway. Everyone you love, who has ever lived in your presence, was once that cluster of cells. And I'm certain that you're not qualified to declare whether or not the fetus is in any pain. They have videos of very young fetuses thrashing about, and acting like they're in distress, but you know better........like you've been there. Life begins at conception, and although that life is dependent upon the woman, he/she has no less of a right to live. This is why tens of thousands of women suffer mental anguish, some for the rest of their lives, over the guilt of snuffing out another life.

dewflirt
- 04/24/2013 at 11:45

'One hundred years ago it would have been unthinkable....'
Not so, see wikipedia - History of Abortion.

robertallen1
- 04/24/2013 at 15:39

"This is why tens of thousands of women suffer mental anguish, some for the rest of their lives, over the guilt of snuffing out another life." How do you know this? How do you know that there are not many more women who simply get on with their lives?
One way or the other it's the woman's choice, not yours.

Xercès Des Stèles
- 05/17/2012 at 03:30

to autor: nice try comparing abortion with what hitler's regime did, but it can never compare no matter how hard you try because not all jew and victims of the holocaust were handicaped or rape victim's babies. kinda made me sick to see people turning against abortion so easily.

Yes, it WAS indeed, a nice try, and he succeeded with great success. His analogy was flawless, and you, Desi, have the heart and mind of Hitler, if you can't put it together that a life is a life is a life. Anything that draws blood, oxygen, and nutrients from another source (the mother), and puts it to good use, to grow and mature, IS LIFE! from the zygote on up. Kill it, if you makes you feel good, or helps to clear up your schedule, or if you think a woman deserves the right to kill the separate life within her, or if you think it's just cool to chop up gestating babies....have at it. YAWOHL!

robertallen1
- 05/17/2012 at 15:01

"Anything that draws blood, oxygen, and nutrients from another source (the mother), and puts it go good use, to grow is LIFE?" This also describes a tumor.

Like most religees, you know so little about science that you are forced to pass your ignorance off as fact to justify your intrusion into private matters.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 03:48

True science is based on observation, robert alien, and if you'd like to read my post one more time, you'll notice two words of distinction...."good use.." It's no wonder you think that a tumor has a good use. You still roam society.

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 05:45

And what a shame that you and banana-brain still roam this planet.

Barry_Joseph
- 05/18/2012 at 01:47

Another good analogy would be the christians who killed far more people than people killed at the holocaust merrily for not believing in their views rather then using christianity as a reason for being pro-life.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 02:37

That's an easy one, BJ. Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." The Roman Catholic Church is guilty of what you speak, and much, much, much more. My conclusion is that the RCC is decidedly NOT Christian. Jesus also asked for his followers to "be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Killing "unbelievers" would still be employed by the RCC, if they were still in power. As it is, wherever they dominate, the people are poor and ignorant. Again, the fruits.

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 02:41

This is the first half-way intelligent thing you've written. The intelligent part is your analysis of the Catholic Church, the unintelligent part is your discrimination between Christians and non-Christians.

Barry_Joseph
- 05/18/2012 at 12:51

ah ah ah not so easy, it is if you're going to side step it on to catholics as ye always do i'm talking about christianity as a single entity meaning follower of christ not a specific branch off for political gain. The two books of Christianity old and new testaments clearly support violence and killing of people "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" and history clearly shows CHRISTIANITY as a violent religion not just RCC here is a list of things the book you're quoting from supports: the crusades, the multiple blessings of wars, warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men and rape. I think you need to research your own religion a bit more and not only from a christian point of view.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 20:18

I've research much that's been done "in the name of Christianity." My point is that I won't argue that religion is responsible for much, if not all, of the war and violence in all of human history. Cain killed Abel because Abel's "religion" was approved of God, and Cain's was not. That made Cain very angry, and the first murder took place.....thus has it ever been. It's a misnomer that all Catholics are "Christians," especially when you're talking about acts committed in large numbers, such as the Crusades, or the Inquisition. If you've ever read the New Testament, you would find a message of peace, love, and contentment. You lifting the words of Jesus out of context doesn't sit well with me. If you believe that He told all of His followers to take a sword and go out and kill those who refuse to repent or convert to Christianity, then you're being willingly ignorant. Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, "Put up, again, thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Jesus always spoke of swords as an instrument of defense, not as an offensive weapon. He came to save men's lives, not destroy them. Measure what's being done in the name of Christ, and if it doesn't square with scripture, then don't blame Christianity. Blame fallen men (of which we all are), with wicked hearts. Christ has no part of such things. Satan is alive and well. How come no one blames him for the evil that goes on, in this world? His name, in Greek, is "Apollyon," which means "Destroyer." War and killing and subjugating, is his bag.

Achems_Razor
- 05/18/2012 at 20:34

All your Satan's, demon's, and everything that is vile is strictly in your mind, as is all your Gods. Not real, show me and others a living breathing deity.

And no ifs and no buts your man made bibles are horror books plain and simple, so no apologetics allowed.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 20:47

Okay, Hell-Razor, you win......for now.

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 21:04

No, forever.

dewflirt
- 05/18/2012 at 20:41

That sword thing, not sure that would wash in court, not where I live anyway :)

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 21:02

Do you literally believe that the story of Cain and Abel took place or that "Jesus" said all the things attributed to him? If so, you're an ignoramus and a fool.

Have you ever studied the history of the Bible and the formation of the various doctrines? If so, who do you think you are to tell people what is Christian and what isn't? But again this goes back to your dictating that abortion is wrong. You really must think a lot of your self.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 21:11

It's a free country, Alien, but you seem to haunt me like those garlic knots at the Olive Garden. Check, please!

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 21:30

I take this to mean that you either don't have answers or you're embarassed by the ones you think you have.

Chrispy777
- 05/18/2012 at 21:35

Take it the way you usually do, Alien. Wrong.

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 22:05

Then provide me with an intelligent response.

Chrispy777
- 05/19/2012 at 00:24

A fruitless endeavor. You'd never recognize it, as such.

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 00:47

So far, you haven't posted anything amounting to intelligence and knowledge and your only response has been dogma. Therefore, I assume that you lack the ability to respond; however, lest my assumption be incorrect, I will reiterate my questions.

1. Do you literally believe that the story of Cain and Abel took place?

2. Do you believe that "Jesus" literally said all the things attributed to him in the New Testament?

3. Have you ever studied the history of your beloved bible or the formation of the various doctrines (read creeds)?

Not that I expect anything approaching a relevant answer.

Chrispy777
- 05/19/2012 at 09:34

1. Absolutely
2. Absolutely
3. Absolutely
Now, let me read your mind; you've asked questions 1, 2, and 3 so you can bowl me over with how educated you are, with the knowledge that learned textual critics have traced the scriptures back to other religions, and that it was all plagiarized, and entirely unreliable. You'll be pleased to inform this ignorant Christian that Jesus was a fictional personage....an amalgamation, again, borrowed from other religions. You'll throw in a few tidbits on archaeologist's findings and interpretations, that should debunk any Christian's foolish dependence on a mere book. An antiquated book which Christians prize so highly, as their final authority on everything, and you, thankfully, have the straight dope, and will save us from our ignorance.

Here's the bottom line, for you. Everyone has their final authority, even if it's just "Thus saith Robert Allen." Drawing from your lack of respect for human life, I can reasonably conclude that you're a faithful disciple of Darwin, for if all life came from nothing, and "Mother Nature" is responsible for our evolution, then there's no need for God, as our Father. There's no fall, no sin, no judgment. It's all a hoax, a fable, invented to enslave one group, and empower the other. My position is that God created everything, just as we see it today. God is holy, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. We, as God's special creation, had fallen, rebelled, and continues to sin against Him. We are responsible to our Creator, and will stand in judgment, one day. We both have our individual faith, Robert....our "religion." Since real science is based on observation, and neither you nor I were there to see the big bang happen, or special creation, then neither of us can prove our position. They BOTH MUST be taken on FAITH. Personally, I think my model makes much more sense, because in all of human experience, to this very day, you won't find one example, in nature, of getting something from nothing. Yet the evolutionist says, "Nope. It happened, at least once. We didn't see it happen.....but we know it did." You argue that you came from a single-celled organism, and I would agree that your methods of debate bear out that fact. I argue that I was fearfully and wonderfully created by omnipotence and omniscience. Acknowledging that pearl of wisdom is something you'll never be capable of grasping, until you acknowledge your Creator.

ps I'll bet it slipped right by you....the irony of you respecting a single-celled organism, from billions of years ago, versus your disdain for a single-celled potential, fully-functioning human being, with only a nine-month wait. Glorious hypocrisy!

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 15:22

Your answers to the first two questions show you up for the ignoramus that you are. Your answer to the third is false or you wouldn't have answered the first two the way you did. The remainder of your post is nothing more than typical religious drivel displaying the usual ignorance of science and practically everything else. Your attempt to debase textual scholars and scientists is really an attempt to debase knowledge and the acquisition of it in favor of ignorance, superstition and shakey moral high ground.

And yes, your bible is antiquated and anyone who uses it as you do and for the same purposes is, to put it mildly, a blinded fool, which you have demonstrated admirably.

In all, you are everything I thought you were from the beginning, someone whose inane religion imbues him with the conceit to dictate right and wrong to others, but who really knows as much about "god" and all the baggage that goes with it as he does about science. In other words, someone pathetically delusional--and this is the person who is telling women that abortion is sinful?

Barry_Joseph
- 05/19/2012 at 03:33

I was raised a catholic and have read the new testament numerous times and I have not found any message of piece and love. I have not lifted the words of Jesus out of context thats what's written in your book I just quoted it. What doesn't sit well with me is someone taking what is written in a 2000 year old book from an unknown author and trying to use it as fact. My original point was I could make the same documentary using Christianity as the same guilt trip as the holocaust which is still true you haven't proven other wise and quoting rubbish from your story book isn't going to change that. You have the cheek to call me ignorant when you think it's ok to use Christianity as a catalyst for pro life on such a sensitive subject. As for the devil, ha ha you tell me what thats about maybe your god shouldn't have invented him? or maybe the devil has the same powers as your god? or maybe it's all rubbish?

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 03:44

It probably all is and considering the history of the Catholic Church and other religions, organized or not, probability transforms into certainty.

Chrispy777
- 05/19/2012 at 10:11

The fact that you were raised Catholic, and have no need or respect for the holy scriptures, doesn't surprise me. I also was raised Catholic, and the bible was never stressed as the word of God. Church tradition and the pope's declarations, always over-shadows the bible. Romans 10:17 says,"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." I'm not sorry that you're offended by me quoting bible "facts." It's my life book, and when you're talking about the extinguishing of life in the womb, the bible has plenty to say about it, and against it. King David wrote in Psalm 139:12-18 "Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee."

I was tempted to highlight certain portions quoted above, but I'll take for granted that you can grasp the basic message that God can see everything going on inside the womb, even if we can't.

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 10:35

Don't think I've ever read a passage from the bible without it sounding like it was written by Dogberry from Much ado About Nothing, it's half good at a glance but really says nothing.... Or anything :)

AntiTheist666
- 05/19/2012 at 15:36

@Dewflirt

Hello Flirty One

You’re spot on there. Much flokkyknockypilocksandfornication.

The Crucified One

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 16:50

Hello sixes, good bit of mangling there, Shakespeare in a word, impressive :)

AntiTheist666
- 05/19/2012 at 16:59

@Dewflirt

Felicitations Flirty.

Thanks, it seems quite apt as I’m watching a fab version of Twelfth Night Write now :-)

AntiTheist666
- 05/19/2012 at 17:59

That first interpretation was the biblical version; this is it in the original Shakesmanglian.

Floppyknockerswilliestittiespillocksandfornication.

dewflirt
- 05/19/2012 at 18:07

I'm from Shakesmanglia, think I like the revised edition even more!
You know it's going to take longer to open the curtains than it will to perform your plays though, expect nuts to be thrown at you ;)

AntiTheist666
- 05/19/2012 at 18:34

@Dewflirt

How very dare you speak such truth! Nuts! I want my slings and arrows!

PS I’ll have you know some of my plays have lasted for what seemed like a lifetime. Lol ;-)

robertallen1
- 05/19/2012 at 15:26

So the bible is your "life book." Just remember, not everyone is as superstitious and wilfully ignorant as you.

Barry_Joseph
- 05/19/2012 at 15:31

All you have done in your last statement was quote rubbish from your story book which I've dealt with in my last comment so unless you can think of something to say out of that tiny little mind of yours get back to me as one can't really argue with fiction.

Achems_Razor
- 05/19/2012 at 15:53

There you go again, circular logic, the bible told me so ad nauseum, is that all you religee's have as your proof, nobody with any smarts that is, pays attention to that gooblygook anymore, doesn't mean squat!!

over the edge
- 05/19/2012 at 16:01

@Chrispy777
do you have any actual proof for your stance on abortion? because if your stance right or wrong is based on religion or an opinion you have no right to force it upon others. we can both quote the bible to support our positions. you can show your lack of understanding of evolution and the big bang. neither have anything to do with this subject and in my opinion are an attempt to distract from the actual topic of debate here. the only two relevant questions here in my opinion are. when does life begin? and when does another person have the right to dictate what someone does with/to their own body. so with that in mind i will ask again. where is your proof?

Jane_Lane
- 07/09/2012 at 09:02

The Bible is notably quite silent on the issue of abortion. However, it's not silent about how you should judge not lest ye be judged, and how you shouldn't proclaim your religion on the corners, and that you should remove the log from your eye before commenting on the splinter in your brother's and a whole mess of other things modern Christians conveniently ignore to crusade against abortion, birth control and homosexuals.

Since before the dawn of Christianity, the Jews have wreaked holocaust after holocaust on those they consider both their foe and inferiors. I just do not see the necessity of linking every horrible reality of this system to a non-event exonerating a false account of WW11, WW1 and every revolution known in history.

That said, there are plenty of tribes who practiced infanticide in honour of the same bloodthirsty gods they believed in.

However, the big problem with abortion is the same big problem everywhere: our births, health, education and very survival is regulated by a third party making money along the way.

Once you kill the medicine wisdom of the people, you kill the knowledge of procreation and choice. Once you allow a foreign psychopathic agency to control economics and put a value on human life, you will have a devalued human life in a system which will not support it.

There is no getting away from the fact that abortion is murder. Yet, it is not a crime of the woman, it is a crime of us all and this Society and it's lousy value system.

As this society is well into its Eugenics Depopulation exercise, we are in grave danger of becoming extinct, whilst all the while being told we are overpopulated. In cities, yes.

To my mind, it is the lesser of the two cruelties, that, if conception couldn't have been avoided then a termination of life would be preferable to the existence to come.

It's all very well for the Christian misleaders to harang on about abortion being a holocaust; it's a very profitable business. And it was the Christain faith which kept girls and boys ignorant to the degree that they were clueless about courting, dating, safe sex and if there were consequences, what would be arranged. That would drive the selection and the outcome of courtship.

These homosexual men who corrupt boys and THEN have the gall to talk about natural relations and childbirth should be laughed out of court, together with their fkbuddy friends in Congress.

Nobody likes abortion, but there are as many reasons for it as there are girls in trouble. I have an idea that what most people find repulsive is the production line feel of the whole thing, in a sense it is. I don't believe many women take this decision lightly, I do believe that most of them think long and hard before going through with it and a lot of women change their minds at the last minute. What worries me more than anything is that the choice is taken away. Any law that tries to limit abortion will become so bogged down in ifs and buts that it will no longer work, women will suffer and children will suffer. Until contraceptives and education are freely and readily available to all women, until the social care system works as it should, until pregnant women are treated fairly and equally at work, until people decide to actually help young mothers etc etc etc, then I will remain firmly pro choice.

It's a troublesome thing, I can't make it right or wrong or even settle somewhere between. But that's the point I think, with so many views and needs and feelings and situations, if there has to be one law to suit all then surely it has to be a law that offers choice. Mistakes happen, some people don't have anything or anyone to fall back on. Fostering is big news here right now. England is short 9,000 foster families, on average a child is taken into care every 25 minutes, some go home within days, others will bounce through five care homes and as many families before they find a place they feel ok. Many never find a family, a lot of them will end up with no education, no work and a spell or two in prison. This is just my little country and these figures do not include children waiting to be adopted. All that is more hurtful than a 15 minute appointment. Sorry you feel so bad lak, honestly don't like to upset people and as I've said before, I'm oddly fond of you lot :)

...More than 53 Million???!!! :O What a strange Documentary and arguement, I watched about the first 10 minutes, then skipped a bit to get to the points about Abortion. All I gotta say is interesting comments, really makes me think. However, Seeing that the Heart of a Foetus/Baby beats at just 6 weeks and 6 days (barely 3 Months) @ 14:15 is enough to make me unfavor Abortion, but Imo, if a Mother's life is at risk, then yes, she shouldn't be barred from Abortion.

What really angers me is the amount of airtime this Lilliputian manages to garner. "The Atheist Experience" gave him a full half-hour (it's on TDF) while at the same time limiting or curtailing those (including myself) who have far more to contribute. I guess selecting such an easy target allows "The Atheist Experience" and such shows to feel better about themselves.

it doesn't wonder me how simple, or maybe perfected,demagogic rhetoric touches the emotions of the confronted,no matter which topic one feels the pleasure of using, without questioning the techniques used!it's an easy trap for the uncritical & easy minded,maybe this film should be used as an educational lecture for those who fell for it,in aftermath!maybe that will be part two:180-the turn around(again!)

Hello dmxi, that comment is as pretty as a confetti of flowers. Almost doesn't matter what you're saying, it's just nice to run it through my head :) maybe you should make the next film, 360 - there and back to see how far it was :)

dmxi
- 05/21/2012 at 16:31

do i detect a hint of sarcasm?

dewflirt
- 05/21/2012 at 17:18

Not at all, scouts honour. Thought it sounded beautiful :)

dmxi
- 05/21/2012 at 18:23

feel better now,never heard 'as beautiful as a confetti of flowers',even googled it without results. it seems,i'm soft in the head.
thanks for the complement,had a bad day & needed something uplifting.i owe you one.................all the best wishes..............d.

dewflirt
- 05/21/2012 at 19:32

Thanks :) hope your day gets better, strange edit though :)

dmxi
- 05/21/2012 at 18:51

i just posted a 'thank you' comment but it has to be approved first(eerie!)...so just in case it's slipped under someones pillow:
"cheers,dew!"

Deborah Sillett
- 05/16/2012 at 23:28

Are you saying only stupid people believe abortion is wrong? Explain to me how it's 'smart' to say woman who get abortions are forward thinking and modern, but if they killed that same child a day after it was born they are suddenly a murderess, locked up and getting death threats.

Guest
- 05/17/2012 at 00:31

It seems like for many, if the baby has taken a breath of fresh air, he should live on or at least not be terminated.
I have no strong opinion other than for myself although I have helped change the mind of two young women in my life who were going to have abortions. After we talk they both decided to go with it (different times, they don't know each other). I know the two kids, a boy and a girl...both lovely young people. I have also supported others in their choice of abortion.
az

lakhotason
- 05/17/2012 at 00:45

To be honest Az, I don't like abortion at all. But then again it is none of my business.

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 20:45

I am extremely bothered and angered by the amount of air time garnered by this banana-fixated id*ot. "The Atheist Experience" recently gave him a full half-hour (it's on TDF) and at the same time, limits or curtails those (especially me) desirous of making what seems an intelligent, informed contribution. I guess like most of the shows on which he has appeared, "The Atheist Experience" chose a simple target to make themselves look better.

I am saying that by putting up an individual choice up for a vote, as a society we are infringing on that persons right because it shouldn't be for us to get involved.
If a question is put to the public to make abortion legal or illegal it will not address all the problems that are involved. For example in my case I would vote that abortion be illegal but that's not my full answer because I do not intend on taking the right of a woman from making that choice . If my vote wins then along with making my conscience clear that I have done everything in my power to protect a vulnerable and defenseless life; unfortunately with the same vote I will have also taken freedom of choice from the women.
That's why I'm saying the issue should not be voted on or made laws on by society, but be left to the individual woman.
I am definitely not pro-abortion, my conscience is my guide. my logic will have to operate within this principal .

Are you saying that while you believe that while abortion should be illegal, you are basically pro choice?

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 20:59

Yes I am . If a women decides to kill that's on her but she should not use the law that the society has passed to defend her actions and society should not make law on individual choices.

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 21:05

Nor should she be criminalized.

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 21:06

I agree

Rick Kiriakidis
- 05/16/2012 at 20:33

Are you against war?
-Yes
Then you're against killing people, right?
-Yes
What if someone had a gun to your head and you could kill them before they killed you, would you kill them?
-Yes
But you just said you're against killing people!

This is a dumb premise and if anything it made me alot more worried about how history is so poorly taught in our school system, when young people dont know who (I want to use a curse word here) Hitler is, there's a real problem.

I personally believe there is always a solution more acceptable to abortion, but I am also VERY firmly in opposition of imposing my beliefs on other people so my vote will always go to pro choice.

So many men arguing back and forth, the rights of the foetus verses the rights of women. So few women here, likely because this is nobody's business but ours. You pro life boys can scream blue murder 'til the cows come home but you won't change a thing and in the meantime we women will do as we have always done, decide for ourselves. Leave the thinking to us, we'll let you know when we need a shelf putting up or something :)

Nice to hear from you. Of course, it's up to the woman, but trying telling that to a Catholic or fundamentalist.

dewflirt
- 05/16/2012 at 20:15

Hi, seems I'm id**t enough to give it a go though. The Republic of Ireland has anti abortion laws and I dare say they 'work' to a certain extent. Many women travel to England for abortions, where there's a will, there's a way :)

dewflirt
- 05/16/2012 at 20:27

Hey Mr Allen, my reply is being moderated. Seems the Mighty Achems faith in me is misplaced and I am not catching on at all, I forgot to * a word :( Anyway, it was along the lines of Patrick Jones comment. With an English accent though :)

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 20:34

Which comment are you referring to? The only one I can see is the one you posted about 40 minutes ago and that doesn't contain any moderation boilerplate.

dewflirt
- 05/16/2012 at 20:39

It's not back yet, no matter. It was just to point out that abortion is illegal in Ireland, the women travel here for that. Also illegal in Northern Ireland, don't know why but I assumed it would be legal there. What a pointless law.

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 20:50

You're right and you have those damned Catholics to thank for it.

Achems_Razor
- 05/16/2012 at 21:37

Soooo Sorry!! I had to go somewhere for awhile, yeah and don't forget those ***

dewflirt
- 05/16/2012 at 21:49

No worries Blue :)

Pysmythe
- 05/17/2012 at 01:51

I'm all for choice, but aren't pregnancies the result of a man's body, as well? In a committed relationship, WHY SHOULDN'T the man have some say in the matter? Odds are, he does, and very few women in such a relationship simply make the choice on their own... So suggesting that it should not concern the man at all completely belittles him, it seems to me. Are we REALLY that unimportant now? So when you ladies suggest that we should just shut up and leave all the decision-making to you, it makes me want to say, for example: Fine, and well! When the wars that have to be fought roll around, and the draft is reinstated, all of us useless men (except for shelves) will leave all of you little girls to run screaming up to the front lines, because we don't like your laws on our bodies... and you can't have our sons, either.

dewflirt
- 05/17/2012 at 02:19

You really think that's how I think? Now I am sad :( my comment was a reflection of the offhand misogyny and condescension shown by some here. Now you get how it feels. I don't want to belittle men, not anyone, but if some can spit about our wicked ways and wish a woman barefoot and pregnant against her own choosing, then I will wish them D.I.Y.
Conscription? I don't want you or your son or my man or nephew dragged off to a war they don't want to fight. Not even one they do, but who am I to argue? Did you forget? Pro choice. As for my paws, I don't lay them where they're not invited. Your safe. ;)

Pysmythe
- 05/17/2012 at 03:10

No...I don't really think that, and you're right to take issue with some of the comments here. But it honestly did upset me, because sometimes it seems women may be overlooking how deeply the decision for an abortion can affect a man, too... It's not easy for us, either. And if it seems women may be disregarding that a man is even entitled to any feelings about the matter, well...

This whole thing brings back to mind my college Ethics class from 27 years ago, when we covered abortion. Things got awfully heated, to say the least. Euthanasia was pretty much a dead subject, by comparison, lol.

dewflirt
- 05/17/2012 at 09:29

Sorry to have hurt you Mr P, I fired an arrow in anger and you took the hit, I should have aimed better :) you're right about committed relationships, of course in that situation the wishes and views of both parents should be considered. I wonder how often, on the scale of things, that happens though? See you later :)

Keith Cameau
- 05/16/2012 at 18:47

The State's only tool is Violence. To make a law against violence is to threaten violence to enforce it. Here we have followers of the Prince of Peace advocating violence through the state on a people who do not subscribe to the Christian Ethic. But Christian's don't subscribe to the Christian Ethic. Before I get a rant from a Christian now I'll ask to be forgiven. Thanks

Of course I haven't viewed the introductions to every film on TDF, but it is interesting to me that this is the only one I've read that negatively assesses and attempts to refute the content of the documentary.

until the so called child's brain is functional. choice is a meaningless concept to apply to it.. did the thousands of cells your immune system wiped out today have a choice in the matter? aren't they life? did that (hypothetical of course) tapeworm feeding on your tissue have a choice in your eviction?

All this noise from people about protecting LIFE.. they don't bat an eye at sanctions that cause millions of deaths for ACTUAL children and the elderly, don't blink at drug laws that cost thousands of people the best years of their lives, advocate for wars that kill thousands of innocent civilians and reach for that can of RAID with no hesitation. These are all meat eaters who don't even think twice about the life they took to enjoy that meal, yet some embryonic growth being terminated before it becomes a full human being is holocaust.. the hypocrisy, insanity, ignorance and lack of empathy is astounding.

A growth in the womb is not a baby until its brain is fully functional. before this point it is akin to a cancer/parasitical growth in the womb which could potentially be deadly for the host. as muchas we may not like hearin it, life is not so precious and rare.. it is the most common? thing to our experience and bringing a life into this world without the proper desire or preparation could lead to worse things than death, like a child who ends up being so tormented he/she commits suicide.

Pro-abortion people talk about choice and the right to have a choice for the mother ; My question is does a child have a choice or a right in the matter of them being born or aborted ? and if they both have a choice and rights whose amongst the tow come first ? In my opinion a mother has a choice to or not get pregnant and if they do get pregnant the fetus rights are most important .

As a society if we see it necessary to intervene when a baby is being abused by it's own parents and we have gone as far as setting up social services to protect the baby from it's abusive parents, why then do we promote and make available a choice for a mother to kill her unborn child ?
I only wan't to understand the logic of pro-abortion people.

You're confused because you're allowing yourself to think of a fetus as an individual. This is a logical fallacy because a fetus is obviously 100% dependent upon its mother, instantly barring it from being viewed as an "individual" at all. Moreover, how does a fetus which has no emotions, feelings or thoughts somehow warrant "rights" anymore than a tumor? Admittedly, it might sound brash or callous to compare a fetus to a tumor; but medically speaking, they're entirely comparable. Both are technically "alive" and, simultaneously, both are entirely dependent upon the resources of their host. Logic should dictate to you at this point that the only "person" that exists in this equation by default should have the right to decide.

Bottom line: an apple seed is not an apple tree anymore than a fetus is a human. We have different labels for the various stages of life for a *reason*.

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 16:44

So when the legal system gives a harsher sentence to a guy who physically attacks a pregnant woman compered to a guy who also physically attacks a not pregnant woman; what are we saying about a pregnant woman in comparison to a not pregnant woman.
The relationship between the potential of what might become of a fetus and what fully developed humans conscience is what's confusing me. the fully developed humans have laws based on conscience that are meant to protect LIFE that can not defended it's self. What reasons are the same fully developed humans using to KILL LIFE that can not defend it's self ?

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 17:05

Interesting, creative and viable.

wt1776
- 05/18/2012 at 09:14

I am not religious, and remain pro-choice. However I do see both sides of the issue, and understand the passion of both views. A woman should have control over her body. However I think comparing a fetus to a tumor is silly. If you destroy an eagle egg you can be charged with a crime, and that must tell us something about biology. The issue is not simple or straightforward to me, but given all the information I must remain pro-choice.

Guest
- 05/18/2012 at 15:53

In arguments people like to make things cut and dry, i am for this/i am against that, but things are never just one sided. I too see the silliness of the tumor argument, sound like a way to add kindling to a hot fire (in the discussion).
Have a tumor and see if you get attached to it.
az

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 16:01

Yes, it is simple and straightforward. There are no two sides. One group is simply trying to stick its collective nose in where it doesn't belong.

P.S. If you destroy a chicken egg, you wouldn't be.

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 17:02

It's a choice between bringing an unwanted or misbegotten child into the world or not--and the latter is far more justifiable than your pseudo-moral ground.

Also, if the fetus is the product of rape, forcing the mother to go through the trauma of childbirth if she does not wish to do so is exacting an unjust and unwarranted penalty. If I were a woman and this happened to me and I were told that the law requires me to have this child, I would deliberately and openly miscarry in front of as large a group of witnesses as I could gather and then defy the law to take its course.

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 17:50

I knew the rape cases were coming in to this debate and I agree with you. The rape victim has to have a choice and that choice should be only available to a victim if she reports the crime and her health along with catching the criminal becomes a priority since it's a conscience not a choice law. The weird thing is in comparison to facilitating rape victims abortions the law is mainly being used for abortions unrelated to rape.
I think the law should not allow women who haven't been raped to abort and in the process, protect the vulnerable, defenseless LIFE.

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 18:03

Suppose there is no issue of health, but simply of rape, should that woman be forced to bear the child?

Did it ever occur to you that criminalizing abortion will not stop women from having it done--but with far more dire consequences? So one way or the other, the fetus "loses."

Quite frankly, I think you have your nerve dictating on matters of personal choice, conscience or no conscience.

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 18:25

What I am saying is as a society we are hypocrites to have laws to protect the vulnerable and defenseless when it's makes us feel good yet for our conveniences we have passed laws to KILL the vulnerable and defenseless .

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 18:42

And just which laws are you referring to that are design to protect the vulnerable and defenseless?

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 18:58

Social Security Act

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 19:13

And just what about the Social Security Act?

Secondly, as has been pointed out in various posts here, a fetus is biologically little different from a tumor.

Guest
- 05/16/2012 at 17:45

Your question makes sense and i like that it is a question not an attack.
Of course we do not, can not know what the awareness of a fetus is. We don't know what the awareness of a newborn baby is.
Abortion has been happening for ever. The law cannot stop women and men from not wanting a child.
This doc is ridiculous. I wish a well done, intelligent doc was at the root of this thread of conversation.
az

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 18:12

@Azilda,
Abortion having been happening for years still does not make it right does it ?
If the law can not stop women and men from not wanting a child does the law have to allow women and men to KILL a child ?
I'm Only trying to understand and see it from a different point of view.

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 18:19

Try looking at it this way. It's none of your business.

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 18:48

that will be convenient wouldn't it ..... I suppose I will when I can justify that to my own conscience.
thanks for the tip.

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 18:55

It goes against my conscience to add another unwanted or misbegotten child to this world. Obviously your conscience functions differently.

Guest
- 05/16/2012 at 19:19

Ask an unwanted adult if he/she would rather be dead...most would say no. Before you go one creating an other fight here, take the time to understand that people have different opinions and for some they only want to add a diffferent perspective in order to understand better. They may not be ready to agree on the spot, but being talked to respectfully has more impact than being belittled.
az

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 19:27

Anyone who tries to encroach on someone's right of choice deserves to be treated with disrespect.

Guest
- 05/18/2012 at 18:48

@Robertallen1
What if that choice is spiritual?
az

robertallen1
- 05/18/2012 at 19:02

A person has as much right to make such a choice as I have to disrespect him for making it.

Guest
- 05/18/2012 at 19:02

What if that choice is spiritual?
az

Guest
- 05/16/2012 at 18:23

You no longer sound like you are trying to understand...you sound like your mind is made.
az

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 18:35

I suppose you're right because the reasons I am getting are not convincing and even sound like excuses .
thanks for your input anyway ....xxx

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 18:46

Whether you are convinced or not, abortion is here to stay, legal or illegal.

Passing and enforcing anti-abortion laws have been as successful as Prohibition.

John Hechtman
- 05/16/2012 at 18:45

Life is seldom easy - and there are hard choices in almost every action. Try this spin, the rights of those already born and alive MUST take precedence over those who are not capable of life outside the body of the woman carrying the potential-for-life.

Every birth involves risk to a woman's life, is it not then HER right to choose whether to risk death herself, or to kill that which she herself has (with a little help) created? A child which once born, she (and too often, she alone) must support and nourish for 20-odd years - perhaps as long as she lives.

Her body, her life, her risks. No one else has the right to impose their values on her. No one.

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 18:50

Try reasoning thus with a Catholic or a fundamentalist. Of course we know the true agenda of the Catholic church, namely to fill the world with little Catholics, no matter how, no matter the consequences.

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 19:24

I appreciate your input on this sir, as this is a debate not an argument I would like to bring this spin to your attention . Every birth not only involves risks but opportunity too. So by allowing in law for a mother or mother to be; to KILL that what she is carrying, are we not putting this on our conscience too? Why if we are not to impose our values are we compromising our conscience and values by getting involved in passing such a law ?
I propose that it should not be a law but be an individual choice, but have instead a law that protects the LIFE of one that decides to KILL her own; which I suppose we have already e.g Murder and Assault laws

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 19:31

"Our conscience" is this implying some sort of collective conscience of which you are the arbiter?

Jayjay30
- 05/16/2012 at 19:37

No.I'm implying that by putting an individual choice up for a vote as society we are already infringing on the rights of the minority that will loose the vote .

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 19:42

I can't make heads or tails out of this statement.

Guest
- 05/16/2012 at 19:34

JayJay30, i don't know if you are a woman or a man, sounds like you are 30....The beauty of it all is that YOU have a choice and your choice would obviously be to have that child no matter what your conditions are. I respect that, life ask that you respect each and everyone's choice. Yours is the important one for you.
I have known many women who have opted for abortion, none have regretted that choice but many have regretted having had intercourse with the man in question, and for others it was the only choice, a choice taken by both "to be parents".
Also i have known quite a few couple who separated after an abortion, it seems to brake something in the flow or perhaps it was already broken before hand.
az

harry nutzack
- 05/17/2012 at 01:56

a "child" is a fully formed viable human, occupying one of the stages of development between "infant", and "adult". glance again at mr comfort's sonogram image. sloped forehead, flat scalp, foreshortened fingers, eyes set in the sides of the head. had nobody informed you that was a human fetus, would you recognise it as such on viewing it? had the shot included more, the image would also have shown gill slits, and a tail. have you ever met a "child" with side mounted eyes, gill slits, and a tail? a flat head? the "heartbeat" is only sympathetic motion due the mothers cardio system being connected to that of the fetus. the image is a cinematic device, used to evoke emotional response from the viewer. at that stage of development, if extracted from the womb, do you think that fetus would be viable? if not, then it is NOT a "child". it is a fetus, which at that stage of development is pretty much indistinguishable from most mammal fetuses, and many lizard/amphibian ones as well. but for the commentary of mr comfort, one could not in truth distinguish whether it was a human fetus, or chimp, or howler monkey, never mind pig, hamster or polar bear, for all we know, that sonogram was from one of the ill fated offspring of ling ling the panda. that is why first trimester abortions are considered in a much different light than latter term ones, as not a single determinate feature that is exclusively human (except for DNA)is recognizable on dissection, let alone sonogram images.the comparison to a tumor is VERY apt, as it is a growth of tissue being exclusively supported by the host organism, with no chance of viability absent that host. by your train of logic, all miscarriages should result in a coroners inquest, as it would be "the untimely death of a child", at least in the eyes of yourself and mr comfort. your position has NO scientific merit, but instead is supported only by emotion. i dont think folks emotional comfort level should be used to impose restrictions on the behavior of others. nor should it be relevant to a debate of availability of medical services. nobody should be forced to reproduce against their will, no matter what objection others have to the idea.

robertallen1
- 05/17/2012 at 02:10

Don't you mean no merit period? Why confine the matter to science?

Chrispy777
- 05/17/2012 at 09:24

Oh, Hairy, Hairy, Hairy.....your offering of "ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny" is a completely disproven biological hypothesis, and anyone who spouts such stuff is way behind the times. Get with the scientific program, you hack. Now let's talk about "viability," shall we? To remove a maturing fetus from the womb is tantamount to cutting off its blood supply, and therefore its supply of oxygen. A fetus will cease to mature without oxygen, just as I am confident that you, "Hairy Ballsack," will cease to mature, if I should stick your lame ass on the moon, for a few minutes. I don't even think your lame ass matures WITH oxygen. It's LIFE, from the zygote to birth. Respect it....and I'll respect your obvious inclination to NOT live on the moon......you Sorry Nut-Hack.

Jayjay30
- 05/17/2012 at 10:55

@harry and everyone who's logic builds up, leads them the conclusion that since a LIFE of a FETUS and it's POTENTIAL of DEVELOPING into a FULLY FORMED VIABLE HUMAN is " indistinguishable whether it is a human fetus, or chimp, or howler monkey, never mind pig, hamster or polar bear or ill fated offspring of ling ling the panda " and on that base of logic go ahead and KILL that human FETUS. I say that is on your conscience.
If Harry, you agree with me that a Human fetus has a human DNA which seams obvious, why then would you declassify a human fetus and all it's potentials as only a fetus just like that of ling ling the panda?
If you Harry the "scientist" and the doctors call it miscarriage I do not see the reason why the coroners should get involved because the cause of death of the fetus will be known as natural and not suspicious.

blaxparx13
- 05/16/2012 at 13:18

This guy is a nut. A baby is alive as soon as it is born. Abortion is not the Holocaust. Hitler killing people was bad but it's not the same issue at all as
abortion. He won't be changing my mind on this any time soon . At least not using his arguments. I'd be happy to have a friendly argument on this subject. I'm an atheist and have degrees in Philosophy. He can go ahead and believe that crap but he needs to let me ask him some questions. My advice to him is go off and do some real thinking.

Ha, this guy is ridiculous. He shows a bunch of holocaust images and compares it to abortion? We have 1 billion people starving on the planet. Overpopulation is choking our civilization, and this joker is going around on his high horse calling abortion murder? Stopping the growth of an unformed fetus that isn't even conscious of its own existence is not murder. It's not pretty, but neither is about everything our society does, and at least this does solve many problems in impoverished families and societies. I would love for someone to get some dirt on this guy. I don't like michael moore, but i bet he could get the job done. Even if its have truths i want this dude put through hell. I wished he put a mic in my face. =P

I refuse to believe that these people at the beginning really don't know who adolf hitler is. I can understand that they don't know he was actually austrian, and not german. I could even grudgingly except that most the 20 year olds in the usa do not know he was a fascist dicatator and was vehemently anti communist. Sadly, I can even understand that most young americans would not understand the difference between those 2 forms of government. But i absolutely refuse to believe that all those people had no idea who adolf hitler is. That had to be fake.

I meet High School seniors @ work that are doing summer jobs that have never heard of 9/11. You'd be amazed man, people are even stupider now than they were 20 years ago when I first realized most people are dumb. This documentary is HILARIOUS tho, LMAO throughout. Good stuff!

Pysmythe
- 05/16/2012 at 20:45

I felt similarly, which is one reason I stopped watching it 3 or 4 minutes in. Maybe it is true they had no idea, but that must be a pretty tight pair of iPod headphones and a head pretty far up a Kardashian derriere to remain that unaware by that age, like not knowing that water is wet. Either way, being familiar already with the little rat-faced Ray's flashy techniques of televangelical "logic" and "argument," which are just loosely crafted to strengthen the beliefs of those who already agree with him anyway, seeing this cherry-picking just turned me off immediately. If he really had a decent argument, he would've found himself a good college Ethics professor, wouldn't he? But the man can't be really objective, so he has to stick with intellectual fast food, like a philosophical big mac, and insist that's the best thing for you.

robertallen1
- 05/16/2012 at 21:00

It's all too true. I once met a person who insisted that Hitler was Russian!

We live in a pandemic, dumbed-down culture--look at the quality (read intelligence) of the entertainment.

But speaking of entertainment, could you imagine Comfort as a porno star?

Pysmythe
- 05/16/2012 at 21:56

Here's something that may bode well for our future: Precisely as I was reading your post just now, my 8 year-old son was informing me that Copernicium, on the Periodic Table, is named after Copernicus, which was news to me. But I checked him on it, and he was right. He has been keenly interested in the Table lately; something about it appeals strongly to his imagination (he likes to draw it as best as he can from memory, and even likes to make up his own elements and assign them symbols and atomic numbers), and I intend to keep nurturing that.

Not having TV in this house, at least, appears to be paying off a little bit...although currently he's a lazy reader.

With that mustache, I could easily imagine Ray as a Seventies-style porn star...but preferably "incapacitated" with a horrid STD and a burlesque saxophone shoved up his rectum.